On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:23 +0200, Wojciech Dubowik wrote: > On 01/06/15 16:13, Julian Calaby wrote: > > Hi Wojciech, > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:54 PM, Wojciech Dubowik > > <Wojciech.Dubowik@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> We call rcu locked ieee80211_csa_update_counter from > >> already locked section. Fix it by decrementing counter > >> directly instead of calling ieee80211_csa_update_counter. > > Stupid question: wouldn't it be better to split the work from > > ieee80211_csa_update_counter() into a separate function without > > locking and call that instead? > Yes. It would be better for maintenance. It's just that they will > have different input parameters > > ieee80211_csa_update_counter(struct ieee80211_vif * > __ieee80211_csa_update_counter(struct beacon_data * > > as it doesn't make sense to dereference beacon twice. > > I guess it's not a problem? Seems fine to me. 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
