On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 05:19 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 13:23 -0700, Javier Cardona wrote:
>
> > +static void mpp_path_flush(struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata)
> > +{
> > + struct mesh_table *tbl;
> > + struct mesh_path *mpath;
> > + struct mpath_node *node;
> > + struct hlist_node *p;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + read_lock_bh(&pathtbl_resize_lock);
> > + tbl = rcu_dereference_protected(mpp_paths,
> > + lockdep_is_held(pathtbl_resize_lock));
> > + for_each_mesh_entry(tbl, p, node, i) {
> > + mpath = node->mpath;
> > + if (mpath->sdata != sdata)
> > + continue;
> > + spin_lock_bh(&tbl->hashwlock[i]);
> > + spin_lock_bh(&mpath->state_lock);
> > + call_rcu(&node->rcu, mesh_path_node_reclaim);
>
> Why is read_lock sufficient? Why is this even a r/w lock?
n/m, I thought about this again and also saw the explanation in patch 9,
definitely seems fine. It's just a little unusual to me to have
per-bucket locks as well :)
johannes
--
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
