On Wednesday 06 October 2010 12:10:26 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 12:00 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > > The timer itself is part of the station's private struct. > > The clean-up routine will deactivate the timer as soon as > > the station is removed. Therefore the extra sta->lock > > protection should not be necessary. > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > - spin_lock(&sta->lock); > > ieee80211_release_reorder_timeout(sta, *ptid); > > - spin_unlock(&sta->lock); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > There's a comment on ieee80211_release_reorder_timeout() saying that the > lock must be held -- which is probably not true? We don't generally hold > that lock on the RX path...? That comment is more or less a 1:1 copy from the comment about struct tid_ampdu_rx (in sta_info.h). > * This structure is protected by RCU and the per-station > * spinlock. Assignments to the array holding it must hold > * the spinlock, only the RX path can access it under RCU > * lock-free. thing is: we now have the reorder_lock which protects the reorder buffer against "destructive access". So, is it "ok" to trim the comments a bit? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
