On 09/11/2016 11:41 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
- rcu_read_unlock();
spin_unlock_bh(&ar->txqs_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
I'm no RCU expert but this isn't making any sense. Maybe it changes
timings on your kernel so that it hides the real problem?
I'm not sure this fixed anything or not, it just seemed weird so I
changed it.
I was hoping someone that understood rcu locking would comment...
RCU is no "locking". The sooner you get over that notion, the better.
This therefore make no sense whatsoever.
In fact, you want to keep the RCU protected section *small*, so having
the spinlock inside hurts overall system performance.
Ok, thanks for the review. I'll drop this patch from my tree.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
_______________________________________________
ath10k mailing list
ath10k@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
