On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> I suggest to insert at least some WARN_ON(1) for the else case. >> > >> > Disagree, not until somebody audits the code. We already know it can >> > happen and a WARN() won't help us track it down because it provides no >> > additional information (stack trace is useless) >> >> What about printk(KERN_WARN ), The else statement actually means that >> something wrong happened. > > Thing is, I'm not totally convinced it is wrong to the code while it may > or may not be wrong... Doesn't should be bss pinned int he bss list if you are associating to it. If it's not there you don't have access to it's info It looks very wrong to me. I think this patch should go in first as it > actually fixes the oops, and then we can discuss the merits of adding a > warning there separately. Maybe after we look a bit at the code and try > to figure out whether it can still happen after that patch from > Abhijeet. I'm not sure if this patch is complete without this warning. What is in the else statement is a hack and it should be obvious. Tomas -- 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
