On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:43:50AM +0530, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Senthil Balasubramanian > <senthilkumar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:37:05AM +0530, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> The real way to lock RX is to contend on the PCU > >> and reset, this will be fixed in the next patch but for > >> now just do the renames so that the next patch which changes > >> the locking order is crystal clear. > >> > >> This is part of a series that will help resolve the bug: > >> > >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14624 > >> > >> For more details about this issue refer to: > >> > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=128629803703756&w=2 > >> > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx > >> Cc: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Kyungwan Nam <kyungwan.nam@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h | 2 +- > >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c | 4 ++-- > >> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/recv.c | 6 +++--- > >> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h > >> index 0f0bc54..81fed83 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ath9k.h > >> @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ struct ath_rx { > >> u8 rxotherant; > >> u32 *rxlink; > >> unsigned int rxfilter; > >> - spinlock_t rxflushlock; > >> + spinlock_t pcu_lock; > >> spinlock_t rxbuflock; > >> struct list_head rxbuf; > >> struct ath_descdma rxdma; > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > >> index dcd94ba..37f18ef 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c > >> @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ void ath9k_tasklet(unsigned long data) > >> rxmask = (ATH9K_INT_RX | ATH9K_INT_RXEOL | ATH9K_INT_RXORN); > >> > >> if (status & rxmask) { > >> - spin_lock_bh(&sc->rx.rxflushlock); > >> + spin_lock_bh(&sc->rx.pcu_lock); > > no need to disable bh as you are already in tasklet. I understand that the > > existing code itself was doing this and I thought of fixing that anyway. > > Can you plese fix this as well with this patch? > > Nah, I rather this be a separate patch, which you can test and send yourself :) Since we are sending this to stable, I thought we can send a clean patch. > > >> > >> /* Check for high priority Rx first */ > >> if ((ah->caps.hw_caps & ATH9K_HW_CAP_EDMA) && > >> @@ -617,7 +617,7 @@ void ath9k_tasklet(unsigned long data) > >> ath_rx_tasklet(sc, 0, true); > >> > >> ath_rx_tasklet(sc, 0, false); > >> - spin_unlock_bh(&sc->rx.rxflushlock); > >> + spin_unlock_bh(&sc->rx.pcu_lock); > > here also. spin_lock() is sufficient. > > Ditto. > > Luis -- 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
