On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 12:50 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Friday 03 August 2007 00:02:07 Johannes Berg wrote: > > Adding to my previous mail, this fix is not enough. As you can see > > below, it is never safe to call flush_scheduled_work() under rtnl > > because some other things running *from* the global events workqueue > > acquire the rtnl and hence it we could deadlock against them. > > > > I think the fix would be to use cancel_delayed_work_sync() here instead > > of a combination of cancel_delayed_work() and flush_workqueue(). > > Ah, Ok. I didn't see that rtnl is locked there, too. Well, it's a wireless extensions call... > cancel_delayed_work_sync could probably work. Care to test that? I can give it a try next week. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
