On 28-3-2017 16:25, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>>>> - if (rdev->ops->resume) {
>>>> - rtnl_lock();
>>>> - if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
>>>> - ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>>>> - rtnl_unlock();
>>>> - }
>>>> + rtnl_lock();
>>>> + if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
>>>> + ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
>>>> + rtnl_unlock();
>>>
>>> Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?
>>
>> Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before checking
>> rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no
>> longer access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a
>> wiphy_unregister() can safely kfree() the callback struct after it.
>
> Oh, right. Looks like I misinterpreted things.
So apparently my choice of words was poor. Do you want me to rephrase?
Regards,
Arend
