Re: [PATCH retry] bluetooth : add conn add/del workqueues to avoid connection fail

["Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>]

On Feb 1, 2008 10:33 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:24:41 +0800
>
>
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:09:30PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 30 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The bluetooth hci_conn sysfs add/del executed in the default workqueue.
> > > > If the del_conn is executed after the new add_conn with same target,
> > > > add_conn will failed with warning of "same kobject name".
> > > >
> > > > Here add btaddconn & btdelconn workqueues,
> > > > flush the btdelconn workqueue in the add_conn function to avoid the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > diff -upr a/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c
> > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c   2008-01-30 10:14:27.000000000 +0800
> > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sysfs.c   2008-01-30 10:14:14.000000000 +0800
> > > > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> > > >  #undef  BT_DBG
> > > >  #define BT_DBG(D...)
> > > >  #endif
> > > > +static struct workqueue_struct *btaddconn;
> > > > +static struct workqueue_struct *btdelconn;
> > > >
> > > >  static inline char *typetostr(int type)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -279,6 +281,7 @@ static void add_conn(struct work_struct
> > > >   struct hci_conn *conn = container_of(work, struct hci_conn, work);
> > > >   int i;
> > > >
> > > > + flush_workqueue(btdelconn);
> > > >   if (device_add(&conn->dev) < 0) {
> > > >           BT_ERR("Failed to register connection device");
> > > >           return;
> > > > @@ -313,6 +316,7 @@ void hci_conn_add_sysfs(struct hci_conn
> > > >
> > > >   INIT_WORK(&conn->work, add_conn);
> > > >
> > > > + queue_work(btaddconn, &conn->work);
> > > >   schedule_work(&conn->work);
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > So you queue &conn->work on both btaddconn and keventd_wq?
> >
> > My fault. Thanks for pointing out.
> >
> > new patch as following (some fixes according to marcel's style as well)
>
> Your original patch was already in the tree, so I just checked
> in the relative changes.
>
> Please don't me do this next time :-)

David, sorry for it. Should be more careful.

Thanks :)