From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:15:15 +0100 > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 15:37 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> When an rhashtabl walk is done from irq/bh context, we rightfully >> get a lockdep complaint saying that we could get a (soft-)IRQ in >> the middle of a rehash. This happened e.g. in mac80211 as it does >> a walk in soft-irq context. >> >> Fix this by using irq-safe locking here. We don't need _irqsave() >> as we know this will be called only in process context from the >> workqueue. We could get away with _bh() but that seems a bit less >> generic, though I'm not sure anyone would want to do a walk from >> a real IRQ handler. > > Please drop this, it doesn't make sense. > > I'll resend with all the spinlock usage changed to either _bh or > _irqsave(), since it makes no sense to enforce any kind of outside > BH/irq disabling for purposes of the inner lock. Ok.
