On Thursday, 21 November 2024 21:24:31 CET Remi Pommarel wrote: > > > > And then you can also move this before "tt_diff_entries_num = ..." and > > save the corresponding bat_priv->tt.local_changes for the spliced list to > > the > > inside the lock also in a local variable. And then operate on this variable > > for the other decisions. Of course, you must still clean the local list in > > case of an error. Which of course would slightly change the behavior in > > case > > of an allocation error in batadv_tt_prepare_tvlv_local_data (which would > > previously kept the list as it was). > > > > But if it would be done like this then we could also remove the READ_ONCE > > and > > not introduce the WRITE_ONCE - just because local_changes is only touched > > inside a locked area (see changes_list_lock). > > > > Please double check these statements - this was just a simple brain dump. > > Yes that would be a much more elegant way to handle it. Unfortunately, > if I don't miss anything, the WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE would still be > needed because batadv_tt_local_commit_changes_nolock() has to load > tt.local_changes out of the lock to check if it needs to purge client > and recompute CRCs.
Ah, you are right. I've missed this one.
Btw. just to make it clear: These changes wouldn't be for this patch/fix
anyway. Just for a potential refactoring/cleanup patch for net-next.
Kind regards,
Sven
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
