On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 16:46 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>
> 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?
Nah, don't worry. When I apply it I'll re-read and see if I just
confused myself or if it makes sense to reword a bit.
johannes
