On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:19 +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 14:48:35 +0200 > Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'll look in a bit - but > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&sta->ampdu_mlme.mtx); > > > ___ieee80211_stop_rx_ba_session( > > > sta, tid, WLAN_BACK_RECIPIENT, > > > WLAN_REASON_QSTA_TIMEOUT, > > > true); > > > > This already has three underscores so shouldn't drop. > > Right, of course. > > > [...] > > > + mutex_unlock(&sta->ampdu_mlme.mtx); > > > __ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session(sta, 0, > > > 0, > > > 0, 1, tid, > > > > maybe this one needs a ___ version then? > > Either that, or as it's a single call, perhaps just the following? > Matter of taste I guess... I don't think it's a matter of taste - for me, in principle, dropping locks for small sections of code where the larger section holds it is a bug waiting to happen. It may (may, I don't even know) be OK here, but in general it's something to avoid. johannes
