On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 14:07 -0500, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 03:48:56PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > Many places that currently check that cfg80211_
> > The function needs to hold the cfg80211_mutex as
> > it uses the global cfg80211_regdomain variable, so
> > add the lock assertion to it and fix one of the
> > callers that doesn't hold that mutex.
>
> Something missing in the description there?
Completely wrong ... looks like I got interrupted while writing it or
something ...
Here's what I changed it to now:
Many places that currently check that cfg80211_mutex
is held don't actually use any data protected by it.
The functions that need to hold the cfg80211_mutex
are the ones using the cfg80211_regdomain variable,
so add the lock assertion to those and clarify this
in the comments.
The reason for this is that nl80211 uses the regdom
without being able to hold reg_mutex.
johannes
--
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
