8 messages, 6 authors, 2012-05-08 · open the first message on its own page
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: 2012-05-07 11:49:43
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ... johannes
From: David Herrmann <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-08 13:30:39
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...
Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.
johannes
Regards David
From: Ulisses Furquim <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-08 14:20:37
Hi David, On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM, David Herrmann [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.
Thanks for fixing it. I'm sure we haven't noticed but it's still weird to have it this way. :-/ Regards, -- Ulisses Furquim ProFUSION embedded systems http://profusion.mobi Mobile: +55 19 9250 0942 Skype: ulissesffs
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: 2012-05-08 14:25:08
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:30 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.
I was thinking you could use %pM, but it seems BT addresses are stored the wrong way around for some reason ... johannes
From: Andrei Emeltchenko <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-08 14:30:12
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:25:08PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:30 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:quoted
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.I was thinking you could use %pM, but it seems BT addresses are stored the wrong way around for some reason ...
This looks like better idea then allocating buffers, we can use swap to take care about "wrong order". Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Date: 2012-05-08 17:18:52
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 17:30 +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:25:08PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:30 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:quoted
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.I was thinking you could use %pM, but it seems BT addresses are stored the wrong way around for some reason ...This looks like better idea then allocating buffers, we can use swap to take care about "wrong order".
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/3/358
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Date: 2012-05-08 17:48:33
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 10:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 17:30 +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:25:08PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:30 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:quoted
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.I was thinking you could use %pM, but it seems BT addresses are stored the wrong way around for some reason ...This looks like better idea then allocating buffers, we can use swap to take care about "wrong order".https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/3/358
Pretty much what I had in mind, thanks. Luis, you'll notice that this will be a pain to backport in compat. :-) johannes
From: Luis R. Rodriguez <hidden>
Date: 2012-05-08 18:26:53
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 10:18 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 17:30 +0300, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote:quoted
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 04:25:08PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:quoted
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 15:30 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:quoted
Hi Johannes On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Johannes Berg [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Really? 2 static buffers that are used alternately based on a static variable? How can that possibly be thread-safe? That may work in very restricted scenarios, but ...Looking at "git blame" it seems the whole function is still from linux-2.4. Looks like no-one ever noticed. I've sent a patchset fixing it, thanks.I was thinking you could use %pM, but it seems BT addresses are stored the wrong way around for some reason ...This looks like better idea then allocating buffers, we can use swap to take care about "wrong order".https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/3/358Pretty much what I had in mind, thanks. Luis, you'll notice that this will be a pain to backport in compat. :-)
Mumble grumble. Oh well! :) I'm starting to enjoy the curve balls. Luis