Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] Bluetooth: Hold the lock inside l2cap_get_sock_by_addr() From: Marcel Holtmann To: "Gustavo F. Padovan" Cc: Ville Tervo , "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <20101105143711.GB9116@vigoh> References: <1288710198-6108-1-git-send-email-padovan@profusion.mobi> <20101105134935.GD19903@null> <20101105143711.GB9116@vigoh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:39:55 +0900 Message-ID: <1289367595.9615.240.camel@aeonflux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Gustavo, > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:03:12PM +0100, ext Gustavo F. Padovan wrote: > > > It also have to change the name of the function to > > > l2cap_get_sock_by_addr() because we do hold the lock inside it now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo F. Padovan > > > --- > > > net/bluetooth/l2cap.c | 17 ++++++----------- > > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > > index 6f931cc..3d48867 100644 > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c > > > @@ -728,15 +728,18 @@ static inline void l2cap_chan_add(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sock *sk, stru > > > } > > > > > > /* ---- Socket interface ---- */ > > > -static struct sock *__l2cap_get_sock_by_addr(__le16 psm, bdaddr_t *src) > > > +static struct sock *l2cap_get_sock_by_addr(__le16 psm, bdaddr_t *src) > > > { > > > struct sock *sk; > > > struct hlist_node *node; > > > + > > > + write_lock_bh(&l2cap_sk_list.lock); > > > > Code is only reading so read_lock_bh would be enough? > > Sure, I didn't looked to that, I just keept the same code that we were > using before. I'll fix it. we might also not just bother with read/write locks. Since they are not always the right thing to do. In a lot of cases a pure spinlock is just better. And in case of Bluetooth I think we would be just fine with using a pure spinlock. You might run some tests with this. Regards Marcel