On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 16:27 +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > Sorry for the extended bothering :) but here, you're extending quite > a bit the scope of the lock also > when__ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session() is called by > ieee80211_process_addba_request(). I know, but it doesn't matter. > No idea what the hit can be, but we can't safely assume it's > nothing either. We don't really have to assume anything, we can read the code :-) Trust me, I probably wrote most of it. It's fine, just sanity checks. > What about simply introducing a 'ampdu_mlme_lock_held' argument > instead? Eww, no. johannes
