Message ID | 20221229124845.1155429-3-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | rtw88: Four fixes found while working on SDIO support | expand |
Hi Ping-Ke, On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:48 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote: [...] > > Reviewed-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> > > I think my reviewed-by should behind your signed-off-by. My understanding is that I have to put your Reviewed-by above my Signed-off-by since I added the Reviewed-by to the description. If the maintainer adds your Reviewed-by while applying the patch to the tree they will put your Reviewed-by between my Signed-off-by and the maintainer's Signed-off-by. If this is incorrect then please let me know and I'll change it for v3. Best regards, Martin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:44 PM > To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org; kvalo@kernel.org; s.hauer@pengutronix.de; tony0620emma@gmail.com; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] rtw88: Configure the registers from rtw_bf_assoc() outside the RCU lock > > Hi Ping-Ke, > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:48 AM Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> wrote: > [...] > > > Reviewed-by: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com> > > > > I think my reviewed-by should behind your signed-off-by. > My understanding is that I have to put your Reviewed-by above my > Signed-off-by since I added the Reviewed-by to the description. > If the maintainer adds your Reviewed-by while applying the patch to > the tree they will put your Reviewed-by between my Signed-off-by and > the maintainer's Signed-off-by. > > If this is incorrect then please let me know and I'll change it for v3. > My original thought is to add my reviewed-by in the order like maintainer applies the patch, but your understanding looks reasonable. Sorry for the noise. Ping-Ke
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c index 038a30b170ef..c827c4a2814b 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtw88/bf.c @@ -49,19 +49,23 @@ void rtw_bf_assoc(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct ieee80211_vif *vif, sta = ieee80211_find_sta(vif, bssid); if (!sta) { + rcu_read_unlock(); + rtw_warn(rtwdev, "failed to find station entry for bss %pM\n", bssid); - goto out_unlock; + return; } ic_vht_cap = &hw->wiphy->bands[NL80211_BAND_5GHZ]->vht_cap; vht_cap = &sta->deflink.vht_cap; + rcu_read_unlock(); + if ((ic_vht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MU_BEAMFORMEE_CAPABLE) && (vht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_MU_BEAMFORMER_CAPABLE)) { if (bfinfo->bfer_mu_cnt >= chip->bfer_mu_max_num) { rtw_dbg(rtwdev, RTW_DBG_BF, "mu bfer number over limit\n"); - goto out_unlock; + return; } ether_addr_copy(bfee->mac_addr, bssid); @@ -75,7 +79,7 @@ void rtw_bf_assoc(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct ieee80211_vif *vif, (vht_cap->cap & IEEE80211_VHT_CAP_SU_BEAMFORMER_CAPABLE)) { if (bfinfo->bfer_su_cnt >= chip->bfer_su_max_num) { rtw_dbg(rtwdev, RTW_DBG_BF, "su bfer number over limit\n"); - goto out_unlock; + return; } sound_dim = vht_cap->cap & @@ -98,9 +102,6 @@ void rtw_bf_assoc(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev, struct ieee80211_vif *vif, rtw_chip_config_bfee(rtwdev, rtwvif, bfee, true); } - -out_unlock: - rcu_read_unlock(); } void rtw_bf_init_bfer_entry_mu(struct rtw_dev *rtwdev,