Re: [PATCH 2/4] wcn36xx: Change indication list lock to spinlock

Bjorn Andersson
2015-12-29T04:25:17Z

On Mon 28 Dec 15:06 PST 2015, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:34:25 -0800
> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@kryo.se> wrote:
>
> > In preparation for handling incoming messages from IRQ context, change
> > the indication list lock to a spinlock
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@sonymobile.com>
> > ---
> > 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