Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Authenticated-By: 
From:   Tony Chuang <yhchuang@realtek.com>
To:     Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com>
CC:     "kvalo@codeaurora.org" <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        "briannorris@chromium.org" <briannorris@chromium.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 5/5] rtw88: add BT co-existence support
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 5/5] rtw88: add BT co-existence support
Thread-Index: AQHVQpRSsRYkVSzfAk6nBwJFJaXlo6bgv1+AgAHEjjA=
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 03:13:35 +0000
Message-ID: <F7CD281DE3E379468C6D07993EA72F84D1881C82@RTITMBSVM04.realtek.com.tw>
References: <1564023211-3138-1-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com>
 <1564023211-3138-6-git-send-email-yhchuang@realtek.com>
 <20190729081211.GB2066@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190729081211.GB2066@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: zh-TW, en-US
Content-Language: zh-TW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] rtw88: add BT co-existence support
> 
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:53:31AM +0800, yhchuang@realtek.com wrote:
> > +static struct sk_buff *rtw_coex_info_request(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> > +					     struct rtw_coex_info_req *req)
> > +{
> > +	struct rtw_coex *coex = &rtwdev->coex;
> > +	struct sk_buff *skb_resp = NULL;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&coex->mutex);
> > +
> > +	rtw_fw_query_bt_mp_info(rtwdev, req);
> > +
> > +	if (!wait_event_timeout(coex->wait, !skb_queue_empty(&coex->queue),
> > +				COEX_REQUEST_TIMEOUT)) {
> > +		rtw_err(rtwdev, "coex request time out\n");
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	skb_resp = skb_dequeue(&coex->queue);
> > +	if (!skb_resp) {
> > +		rtw_err(rtwdev, "failed to get coex info response\n");
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&coex->mutex);
> > +	return skb_resp;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool rtw_coex_get_bt_scan_type(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, u8
> *scan_type)
> > +{
> > +	struct rtw_coex_info_req req = {0};
> > +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> > +	u8 *payload;
> > +	bool ret = false;
> > +
> > +	req.op_code = BT_MP_INFO_OP_SCAN_TYPE;
> > +	skb = rtw_coex_info_request(rtwdev, &req);
> > +	if (!skb)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	payload = get_payload_from_coex_resp(skb);
> > +	*scan_type = GET_COEX_RESP_BT_SCAN_TYPE(payload);
> > +	ret = true;
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool rtw_coex_set_lna_constrain_level(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> > +					     u8 lna_constrain_level)
> > +{
> > +	struct rtw_coex_info_req req = {0};
> > +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> > +	bool ret = false;
> > +
> > +	req.op_code = BT_MP_INFO_OP_LNA_CONSTRAINT;
> > +	req.para1 = lna_constrain_level;
> > +	skb = rtw_coex_info_request(rtwdev, &req);
> > +	if (!skb)
> > +		goto out;
> 
> Those coex response skb buffers are allocated in rtw_pci_rx_isr(),
> but I do not see where they are freed (seems we do not process
> them in c2h_work which does dev_kfree_skb()).

You're right, that SKB leaked. Should free them after responded.
I will send v2 to fix it :)

Thanks.

> 
> Stanislaw

Yan-Hsuan