Lingbo Kong <quic_lingbok@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> +struct ath12k_vif *ath12k_mac_get_vif_up(struct ath12k_base *ab)
>>> +{
>>> + struct ath12k *ar;
>>> + struct ath12k_pdev *pdev;
>>> + struct ath12k_vif *arvif;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + for (i = 0; i < ab->num_radios; i++) {
>>> + pdev = &ab->pdevs[i];
>>> + ar = pdev->ar;
>>> + list_for_each_entry(arvif, &ar->arvifs, list) {
>>> + if (arvif->is_up)
>>> + return arvif;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +}
>> I'm not seeing any protection here, is that on purpose?
>
> you means there need to add lockdep_assert_held(&ar->conf_mutex)?
I mean what's the locking design here? Is it safe to concurrectly access
ab->pdevs and arvif->is_up?
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
