On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 02:55 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > >> What protection should driver take to be sure it won't be changed underneath ? > > >> With prive copy you know this is changed only in bss_info changed is called. > > > > > > Yeah, that's true, I guess you can only access those fields there that > > > you can access atomically. That's actually most of the fields though. > > > > > > Also, we don't actually take care about locking this structure at all > > > even in mac80211, something we might need to think about. > > > > When working on SM PS I have the same dilemma I have with > > ieee80211_conf do you think I need to take a private copy of it? > > Well, what do you use it for? If you absolutely rely on it having the > same value, then you probably need to do that, but if you just use it > then I don't see why you'd have to, unless it's some value that can't be > read atomically. Also, there's nothing really stopping it from changing while you're in the ->config() call either. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
