From: Hayes Wang <hayesw...@realtek.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 02:48:50 +0000
>> >> + urb->actual_length = 0; >> >> + list_add_tail(&agg->list, next); >> > >> > Do you need a spin_lock_irqsave(&tp->rx_lock, flags) around this? >> >> Indeed, and rtl_start_rx() seems to also access agg->list without >> proper locking. > > It is unnecessary because I deal with them in a local list_head. My steps are > 1. Move the whole list from tp->rx_done to local rx_queue. (with spin lock) > 2. dequeue/enqueue the lists in rx_queue. > 3. Move the lists in rx_queue to tp->rx_done if it is necessary. (spin > lock) > For step 2, it wouldn't have race, because the list_head is local and no other > function would change it. Therefore, I don't think it needs the spin lock. > > The rtl_start_rx() also uses the similar way. agg->list is not local, you have to use a spinlock to protect modifications to it, some other sites which modify agg->list do take the lock properly. You cannot modify a list like agg->list without proper locking. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
