On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 18:06 +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > The only thing I was thinking is that it's not a good plan to have a > > callback that has different locking requirements depending on a > > parameter. > > yeah... go back to the extra sta_notify_ps callback approach? Fine with me, yeah. It's not very complicated so we can always change it again later. > I tried to do this with workqueues, but It turned out that queue_work > doesn't work since we disabled the irqs in the rx path. > ( http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2005-02/3350.html > has a story about the bitter consequences of queue_work & irq_disabled) Interesting. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
