Re: [PATCH 37/50] wifi: ath12k: add peer.c

Jeff Johnson
2022-08-18T23:34:35Z

On 8/12/2022 9:09 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> From: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@quicinc.com>
>
> (Patches split into one patch per file for easier review, but the final
> commit will be one big patch. See the cover letter for more info.)
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalle Valo <quic_kvalo@quicinc.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/peer.c | 343 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 343 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/peer.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/peer.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..30ffdbbdcc7f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath12k/peer.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,343 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause-Clear
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2018-2021 The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> + * Copyright (c) 2021-2022 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
> + */
> +
> +#include "core.h"
> +#include "peer.h"
> +#include "debug.h"
> +
> +struct ath12k_peer *ath12k_peer_find(struct ath12k_base *ab, int vdev_id,
> + const u8 *addr)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&ab->base_lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(peer, &ab->peers, list) {
> + if (peer->vdev_id != vdev_id)
> + continue;
> + if (!ether_addr_equal(peer->addr, addr))
> + continue;
> +
> + return peer;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static struct ath12k_peer *ath12k_peer_find_by_pdev_idx(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> + u8 pdev_idx, const u8 *addr)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&ab->base_lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(peer, &ab->peers, list) {
> + if (peer->pdev_idx != pdev_idx)
> + continue;
> + if (!ether_addr_equal(peer->addr, addr))
> + continue;
> +
> + return peer;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +struct ath12k_peer *ath12k_peer_find_by_addr(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> + const u8 *addr)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&ab->base_lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(peer, &ab->peers, list) {
> + if (!ether_addr_equal(peer->addr, addr))
> + continue;
> +
> + return peer;
> + }
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +struct ath12k_peer *ath12k_peer_find_by_id(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> + int peer_id)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&ab->base_lock);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(peer, &ab->peers, list)
> + if (peer_id == peer->peer_id)
> + return peer;
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +struct ath12k_peer *ath12k_peer_find_by_vdev_id(struct ath12k_base *ab,
> + int vdev_id)
> +{
> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&ab->base_lock);

the other ath12k_peer_find_*() functions expect the caller to take the
lock, but in this one the function itself takes the lock. why the
discrepancy? should these have a consistent interface? note that the
returned peer won't be protected by the lock.

note i see this is only used in one place, and there it doesn't use the
peer, it just checks if it exists.

perhaps rename this to bool ath12k_peer_exists_by_vdev() to justify the
difference in locking?

> +
> + list_for_each_entry(peer, &ab->peers, list) {
> + if (vdev_id == peer->vdev_id) {
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ab->base_lock);
> + return peer;
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ab->base_lock);
> + return NULL;
> +} …