Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]:36862 "EHLO mail-pf0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753170AbbL2EZR (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:25:17 -0500 Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 65so77151406pff.3 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:25:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:25:10 -0800 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Eugene Krasnikov , Kalle Valo , fengwei.yin@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, wcn36xx@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] wcn36xx: Change indication list lock to spinlock Message-ID: <20151229042510.GI16437@tuxbot> (sfid-20151229_052544_607177_389E903D) References: <1451266467-15377-1-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <1451266467-15377-3-git-send-email-bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com> <20151228150635.79181f6e@xeon-e3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20151228150635.79181f6e@xeon-e3> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon 28 Dec 15:06 PST 2015, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:34:25 -0800 > Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > In preparation for handling incoming messages from IRQ context, change > > the indication list lock to a spinlock > > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson > > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c | 12 ++++++------ > > drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/wcn36xx.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > > index 6b5dbe6f0d0a..4307429740a9 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/wcn36xx/smd.c > > @@ -2165,10 +2165,10 @@ static void wcn36xx_smd_rsp_process(struct wcn36xx *wcn, void *buf, size_t len) > > msg_ind->msg_len = len; > > memcpy(msg_ind->msg, buf, len); > > > > - mutex_lock(&wcn->hal_ind_mutex); > > + spin_lock(&wcn->hal_ind_lock); > > If you are going to handle messages in IRQ context, that better be a > spin_lock_irq() or spin_lock_bh(). This function is executed in IRQ context after the next patch, as such I use spin_lock() here and spin_lock_irqsave() in the worker thread (wcn36xx_ind_smd_work()). Is this not how the spin_lock API should be used? Regards, Bjorn