On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 10:43:22AM +0800, Edward AD wrote: > Hi Simon Horman, > On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:06:38 +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > > I am wondering if you considered moving the rfkill_sync() calls > > to before &data->mtx is taken, to avoid the need to drop and > > retake it? > If you move rfkill_sync() before calling &data->mtx, more code will be added > because rfkill_sync() is in the loop body. Maybe that is true. And maybe that is a good argument for not taking the approach that I suggested. But I do think it is simpler from a locking perspective, and that has some merit. > > > > Perhaps it doesn't work for some reason (compile tested only!). > > But this does seem somehow cleaner for me. > BR, > edward >
