MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211228211501.468981-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
 <20211228211501.468981-4-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> <1e9ed12ac55e42beb2197524c524e69f@realtek.com>
In-Reply-To: <1e9ed12ac55e42beb2197524c524e69f@realtek.com>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Jan 2022 22:44:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFBinCBUJHWb+VpLdqDh49RSX9oMPjCxU1hzzqsCL31ouG=zmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] rtw88: Move rtw_update_sta_info() out of rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter()
To:     Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>
Cc:     "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tony0620emma@gmail.com" <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
        "kvalo@codeaurora.org" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "johannes@sipsolutions.net" <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Neo Jou <neojou@gmail.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ping-Ke,

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 9:42 AM Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> > @@ -699,11 +702,20 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> >                                   const struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask *mask)
> >  {
> >       struct rtw_iter_bitrate_mask_data br_data;
> > +     unsigned int i;
> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>
> I think this lock is used to protect br_data.si[i], right?
Correct, I chose this lock because it's also used in
rtw_ops_sta_remove() and rtw_ops_sta_add() (which could modify the
data in br_data.si[i]).

> And, I prefer to move mutex lock to caller, like:
>
> @@ -734,7 +734,9 @@ static int rtw_ops_set_bitrate_mask(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>  {
>         struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = hw->priv;
>
> +       mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>         rtw_ra_mask_info_update(rtwdev, vif, mask);
> +       mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
>
>         return 0;
>  }
Thank you for this hint - if I do it like you suggest then the locking
will be consistent with other functions.
I'll send a v3 with this fixed.


Best regards,
Martin