[RFTv2 3/5] ath10k: rework peer accounting

Kalle Valo kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com
Fri Apr 11 02:22:50 EDT 2014

Michal Kazior <michal.kazior at tieto.com> writes:

> On 10 April 2014 09:18, Kalle Valo <kvalo at qca.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior at tieto.com> writes:
>>> The idea is you need BOTH locks to modify the list structure, but you
>>> need only one of them to iterate over the list safely and
>>> consistently. This means writer will not alter the list structure
>>> until there are no readers.
>> Still not understanding this. Why not then use conf_mutex always, why do
>> we need data_lock at all?
> htt peer map/unmap which is in tasklet context needs to iterate over
> the list. It can't take conf_mutex.
>> Or are you saying that one can iterate the list by either taking
>> conf_mutex or by taking data_lock, depending on context?
> Yes.

Thanks, finally I understand this. At least the comment below needs to
be changed to cover all cases:

--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c
@@ -100,13 +100,13 @@ exit:
+/* hold conf_mutex for simple iteration, or conf_mutex+data_lock for
+ * modifications */
 struct ath10k_peer *ath10k_peer_find(struct ath10k *ar, int vdev_id,
 				     const u8 *addr)
 	struct ath10k_peer *peer;
-	lockdep_assert_held(&ar->data_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(peer, &ar->peers, list) {
 		if (peer->vdev_id != vdev_id)

The other thing is that I really like the idea of documenting locking
requirements with lockdep_assert_held() and I hate to lose that in this
function. I started to think should we come up with our own macro for
checking if either of two locks is held? When I look at the original
macro I think it should be pretty easy:

#define lockdep_assert_held(l)	do {				\
		WARN_ON(debug_locks && !lockdep_is_held(l));	\
	} while (0)

Kalle Valo

More information about the ath10k mailing list