From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3482 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754458AbYBVQCJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:02:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:57:04 -0500 From: "John W. Linville" To: Johannes Berg Cc: Ron Rindjunsky , linux-wireless Subject: Re: mac80211: sta info locking Message-ID: <20080222155704.GD3067@tuxdriver.com> (sfid-20080222_160250_815586_99F9B086) References: <1203677069.26341.52.camel@johannes.berg> <20080222143745.GB3067@tuxdriver.com> <1203693409.7082.30.camel@johannes.berg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1203693409.7082.30.camel@johannes.berg> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 04:16:49PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > Hence, I think we can actually get away without more locking if we > > > protect the flags better. Should we use a spinlock or the atomic > > > set_bit()/clear_bit()/etc. operations? > > > > Using the atomic operations seems appropriate to me. > > Right, but I figured if we could get rid of the AMPDU spinlocks and just > use a single one in total (for flags as well) then that'd be of benefit > too; even with the dynamic allocation strategy (see other mail) we'd not > need to allocate two more spinlocks for ampdu. Yes, I thought that was behind your question. I'll let Ron comment on the AMPDU spinlock usage. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com