Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:58:43 +0200 From: Emeltchenko Andrei To: Ulisses Furquim Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFCv4 02/16] Bluetooth: Revert to mutexes from RCU list Message-ID: <20120213085841.GB21179@aemeltch-MOBL1> References: <1328882113-19810-1-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> <1328882113-19810-3-git-send-email-Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Ulisses, On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:24:57PM -0200, Ulisses Furquim wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Emeltchenko Andrei > wrote: > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko > > > > Usage of RCU list looks not reasonalbe for a number of reasons: > > our code sleep and we have to use socket spinlocks, some parts > > of code are updaters thus we need to use mutexes anyway. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrei Emeltchenko > > No need to lock and unlock conn->chan_lock in l2cap_disconnect_rsp()? > This change from RCU to mutexes really should be just one commit IMO. I try to add chunks which are not in different patches but then this patch would several hundreds lines long. If this OK I just merge them. > This series is starting to get all confused. The change to RCU was > only one commit so it should be possible to do the "revert" without > breaking anything. "Anything" is already broken in a sense that RCU updaters are not protected at all. So the change does not make it more or less broken. Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko