Hi, On 5 January 2017 at 04:56, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-04 at 15:35 -0500, Andrew Zaborowski wrote: >> On 4 January 2017 at 10:40, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > This also doesn't seem right - the same socket could possibly own >> > both >> > an interface and a connection? If the connection is on the same >> > interface you might not really want to do both - though it >> > shouldn't >> > hurt if all the cancel_work is in the right place - but it could be >> > a >> > different interface? >> >> This is only a syntactic change though. The "continue" is now in the >> "if (schedule_destroy_work)" block so the other actions will not be >> scheduled is the interface is being destroyed. > > Yes, this part is only syntactic, but you added something new > afterwards, and that new thing should happen even if another interface > is going to be scheduled for destruction. > > I actually think that the code right now is already wrong though, since > schedule_destroy_work and schedule_scan_stop shouldn't be mutually > exclusive, a single socket could own both a sched scan and a different > interface. > > I'll fix that bug, and we'll have to deal with the conflicts when > merging this. Yes, good point. I'll just rebase this patch on top of the fix. Best regards
