On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:23 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:32:33AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > > [ 382.529041] [<c02c8abc>] dev_close+0x24/0x67 > > > > > [ 382.529052] [<e01f402b>] ieee80211_master_stop+0x4a/0x6d [mac80211] > > > > This is where the bug is. You cannot call dev_close from an > > atomic context as i33380211_master_stop does it within spin > > locks. > > Hah, I suspected as much but didn't have a chance to look yet. I had > plans to replace that sub_if_list with an RCU list and not require the > lock there, but that's far off. Unless I missed something obvious (let me know if that's the case! :-) an RCU-protected list would suffer the same fate. list_for_each_xxx_rcu() must be under rcu_read_lock() which == preempt_disable() ... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
