Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/main.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/main.c
>> > @@ -2859,7 +2859,9 @@ static void b43legacy_op_bss_info_changed(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>> > b43legacy_write32(dev, B43legacy_MMIO_GEN_IRQ_MASK, 0);
>> >
>> > if (changed & BSS_CHANGED_BSSID) {
>> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wl->irq_lock, flags);
>> > b43legacy_synchronize_irq(dev);
>> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&wl->irq_lock, flags);
>>
>> To me this looks like a fragile workaround and not a real fix. You can
>> easily add new race conditions with releasing the lock like this.
>>
>
>
> I think releasing the lock possibly is fine. It certainly is better than
> sleeping with a lock held.
Sure, but IMHO in general I think the practise of releasing the lock
like this in a middle of function is dangerous as one can easily miss
that upper and lower halves of the function are not actually atomic
anymore. And in this case that it's under a conditional makes it even
worse.
--
Kalle Valo
