On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 13:32 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 28 March 2007 13:07, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:59 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > Oh, you mean virtual interfaces.. yeah, there's probably a race. I don't > > > know the locking there. > > > > Yes, I mean virtual interfaces, when the thing is in progress while we > > iterate through. > > > > > But my comment about the non-irqsafe-variants-should-be-hidden still applies :) > > > > I'll reread it ;) > > > > But I'm not sure I fully agree. If the driver calls __ieee80211_rx in > > softirq context that should be good without requiring to reschedule in > > mac80211. > > I'm not sure there is an easy and non-racy way to drop the driver IRQ lock > while calling __ieee80211_rx synchronously. Depends on the driver, I guess. rt* seem to reschedule already and call __ieee80211_rx. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
