Return-Path: From: Szymon Janc To: Johan Hedberg CC: Andre Guedes , "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] Bluetooth: Add basic start/complete HCI transaction functions Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:36:03 +0100 Message-ID: <22685873.dZ0kFmHBbe@uw000953> In-Reply-To: <20130215082236.GA5232@x220> References: <1360767045-26958-1-git-send-email-johan.hedberg@gmail.com> <20130215082236.GA5232@x220> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Johan, On Friday 15 of February 2013 10:22:36 Johan Hedberg wrote: > > > +int hci_start_transaction(struct hci_dev *hdev) > > > +{ > > > + struct hci_transaction *transaction; > > > + int err; > > > + > > > + hci_transaction_lock(hdev); > > > + > > > + /* We can't start a new transaction if there's another one in > > > + * progress of being built. > > > + */ > > > + if (hdev->build_transaction) { > > > + err = -EBUSY; > > > + goto unlock; > > > + } > > > + > > > + transaction = kmalloc(sizeof(*transaction), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > I've failed to see why we need GFP_ATOMIC here. As this code is not > > running in any atomic section, we can allocate memory using > > GFP_KERNEL. > > Since one of the intentions of this API is to create an async version of > hci_request() I think it's better to keep GFP_ATOMIC here. One situation > where you couldn't for sure use hci_request() is if you're in an atomic > section and then a HCI request would be the only other alternative. You lock mutex in hci_start_transaction so it is non-atomic anyway.. -- BR Szymon Janc