wengzhe commented on PR #12419: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/12419#issuecomment-2137733667
> > @acassis as far as I can tell, the calls to net_unlock() in lines 845 and 893 are not preceded by a call to net_lock(). > > I just mirrored the logic from tcp_ipv4_bind(). Maybe someone with knowledge about the network stack can chip in a better solution? > > @wengzhe could you take a look? Yes, I found the PR https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/10038/files#diff-e791b12e7112fb69dc700af71b6d8ed95f02b9cc717a3b460e2425d734e60593R846 has added unpaired `net_unlock`, maybe @wangchen61698 was copying from what he'd written in `tcp_ipv*_bind`, which has locked at the beginning of the function. Then back to the current PR, extending the scope of the lock may not harm performance that much: - The for loop of net devices is the code we want to protect - Other codes are already locked (notice that `udp_select_port` takes the lock inside.) So this change is acceptable to me. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
