On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 07:48 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > On 23 May 2014 15:03, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 11:06 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote: > > > >> There's nothing wrong with other thread holding it. Actually that's > >> the reason for this very check. > >> > >> The point is to prevent ath10k_drain_tx() being called while caller > >> (current thread) holds conf_mutex. If it were to hold conf_mutex then > >> cancel_work_sync() can deadlock as both workers it tries to stop try > >> to get a hold of the lock too. > > > > That seems pointless - lockdep would warn you about that *anyway* > > because cancel_work_sync() and friends have proper annotations. Try it > > sometime :) > > Does it splat every time or just by chance or after a deadlock? Whenever you execute the second path for the first time. 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
