lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 3/9] rtw88: Move rtw_update_sta_info() out of rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter()
Date

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 5:15 AM
> To: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: tony0620emma@gmail.com; kvalo@codeaurora.org; johannes@sipsolutions.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Neo Jou <neojou@gmail.com>; Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>;
> Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>; Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 3/9] rtw88: Move rtw_update_sta_info() out of rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter()
>
> rtw_update_sta_info() internally access some registers while being
> called unter an atomic lock acquired by rtw_iterate_vifs_atomic(). Move
> rtw_update_sta_info() call out of (rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter) in
> preparation for SDIO support where register access may sleep.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - this patch is new in v2
> - keep rtw_iterate_vifs_atomic() to prevent deadlocks as Johannes
> suggested. Keep track of all relevant stations inside
> rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter() and the iter-data and then call
> rtw_update_sta_info() while held under rtwdev->mutex instead
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
> index ae7d97de5fdf..3bd12354a8a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/mac80211.c

[...]

> @@ -699,11 +702,20 @@ static void rtw_ra_mask_info_update(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,
> const struct cfg80211_bitrate_mask *mask)
> {
> struct rtw_iter_bitrate_mask_data br_data;
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);

I think this lock is used to protect br_data.si[i], right?

And, I prefer to move mutex lock to caller, like:

@@ -734,7 +734,9 @@ static int rtw_ops_set_bitrate_mask(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
{
struct rtw_dev *rtwdev = hw->priv;

+ mutex_lock(&rtwdev->mutex);
rtw_ra_mask_info_update(rtwdev, vif, mask);
+ mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);

return 0;
}

>
> br_data.rtwdev = rtwdev;
> br_data.vif = vif;
> br_data.mask = mask;
> + br_data.num_si = 0;
> rtw_iterate_stas_atomic(rtwdev, rtw_ra_mask_info_update_iter, &br_data);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < br_data.num_si; i++)
> + rtw_update_sta_info(rtwdev, br_data.si[i]);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&rtwdev->mutex);
> }
>

--
Ping-Ke


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-07 09:45    [W:0.165 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site