On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 07:51 +0100, Michal Kazior wrote: > > I mean this: > > > >> + sdata->csa_chandef = params.chandef; > > > > doesn't seem to belong here. > > I mistakenly left that while rebasing. I'll fix that. I think that's > the only thing that shouldn't be in this patch? It's the only thing I found, but ... :) > > It would also be good to explain why you're doing this? > > You mean the whole locking patch? Basically to be able safely assess > CSA state. Taking a bunch of wdev->mtx seems like a bad idea. Due to > how the locks are ordered and organized I've came up with using > local->mtx as an extra CSA-related variable protection. Using > local->mtx makes it possible to iterate over interfaces and check > for/update CSA state in an atomic way. > > Is this a satisfactory explanation? Almost - where exactly do you need that? I'm just trying to weigh this patch vs. the other that I didn't like to see if this is needed regardless of the particular approach of how we switch channels later. 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
