On 02/26/2014 10:17 AM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 10:07 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 08:59 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 20:30 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >>>> Upon deleting the interface a cfg80211_disconnected() is called under >>>> rtnl_lock. Right after the unlocking the rtnl_lock we unregister the >>>> network device. This patch adds delay before unregister so cfg80211 >>>> can handle disconnect and notify wpa_supplicant. >>> >>>> + /* make sure cfg80211 can send disconnect event >>>> + * before unregistering the netdevice below. >>>> + */ >>>> + msleep(100); >>> >>> This has got to be one of the worst hacks I've seen in wireless so >>> far ... :) >> >> Did you see I removed a sleep as well in this patch :-p > > Yeah, I did :-) > >> I just don't see how I can assure cfg80211 has actually done the >> disconnect work. If we don't do a cfg80211_disconnected() I get a WARN >> from the cfg80211 netdev notifier (or at least I did in previous kernel). >> >> Should we consider a clean solution, ie. modify cfg80211 for this scenario? > > Yes. Can't we just flush the work at some strategic place? > > Actually you're not talking about the "disconnect_work" (which is > related to regulatory) but the "event_work" so I was confused here for a > second. > > What was the warning? cfg80211 already calls > cfg80211_process_wdev_events() from within the REMOVE netdev notifier, > so that *shouldn't* have happened. I guess that means some wdev event is missing? It was the WARN_ON(current->bss) that fired. Gr. AvS -- 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
