On 17/02/14 22:13, David Miller wrote:
From: Antonio Quartulli antonio@meshcoding.com Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:48:40 +0100
- atomic_set(&bat_priv->packet_size_max, min_mtu);
Please fix this.
The only operations performed on packet_size_max are 'set' and 'read'. This is not what one uses atomic_t's for.
The use of an atomic_t in this context is a NOP. You aren't getting any kind of synchronization at all.
True. Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately this is not the only "fake-atomic" variable we have.
We'll send a change for this later within our pull request for net-next, ok?