On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM, John W. Linville
<linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 01:47:04PM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > I found one ieee80211_rx_bss_{get,put} imbalance in
>> > ieee80211_sta_join_ibss function
>> > That may cause this problem yet it doesn't look like this is the case.
>> > ieee80211_sta_join_ibss
>> > calls ieee80211_rx_bss_put on 'bss' that it receives as an argument
>>
>> The patch below introduced _get/_put imbalance. ieee80211_rx_bss_info
>> _put bss back at the end. Other callers of the ieee80211_sta_join_ibss
>> function don't use put.
>> I will post a patch that takes out the _put out of
>> ieee80211_rx_bss_info, I think it's more readable.
>
> Since you are doing _get and _add in ieee80211_rx_bss_info, it makes
> sense to me to do _put at the end of it. Perhaps we should remove
> the _put from the end of ieee80211_sta_join_ibss and change it's
> callers instead?
That what I meant I've just pasted wrong function name into the mail
(was lazy typing)
Maybe someone can answer this
static void ieee80211_rx_bss_put(struct net_device *dev,
struct ieee80211_sta_bss *bss)
{
struct ieee80211_local *local = wdev_priv(dev->ieee80211_ptr);
local_bh_disable();
if (!atomic_dec_and_lock(&bss->users, &local->sta_bss_lock)) {
local_bh_enable();
return;
}
---- don't we miss local_bh_enable(); here or spin_unlock_bh takes
care of this ---
__ieee80211_rx_bss_hash_del(dev, bss);
list_del(&bss->list);
spin_unlock_bh(&local->sta_bss_lock);
ieee80211_rx_bss_free(bss);
}
Thanks
Tomas
> 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
