On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 08:47:13AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote: > Johannes Berg wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Well, yes, it is a bit odd. >> >>>> 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. >> >> Considering that the message won't help us at all, why bother? We know >> it's triggering, we know this might be a problem, and we know we can >> only solve it by auditing the code. So why add a message that will get >> us countless emails/complaints from people we cannot do anything about >> anyway without doing the audit? > > This argument could go on endlessly; however, it is clear that we need to > settle on a patch and get it upstream ASAP! Now that mainline is broken, > the urgency is _MUCH_ greater. I agree. I'll take this one unless someone finds a problem with it. John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
