On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 09:22 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > + spin_lock(&queue->tx_lock); > > > rt2x00queue_pause_queue(queue); > > > + spin_unlock(&queue->tx_lock); > > > exit_free_skb: > > > ieee80211_free_txskb(hw, skb); > > > } > > > > I'm sorry, but I'm still not convinced that we can use spin_lock_bh in > > one place of the code and then spin_lock in another place of the code, > > using the *same* spinlock. > > I always use the cheat sheet shown in: > > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/c214.html > > > > which to me shows that by definition we should be using spin_lock_bh in > > all cases now, the new ones and the existing cases where we lock tx_lock. > > We have bh disabled here since ieee80211_xmit is always called with bh > disabled (early on dev_queue_xmit() or in ieee80211_tx_skb_tid()). I can > add comment about that. And in fact if you were to use spin_unlock_bh() in that kind of context it would be a bug :-) 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
