Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 12:39 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: >> >> Exactly. Swithing to use wiphy_lock() definitely one of my longterm >> goals in ath12k. I already started working on switching ath12k to use >> wiphy_lock() but IIRC I got blocked by not being able to call >> wiphy_delayed_work_cancel() without taking wiphy_lock. > > That's because I didn't want to have an async version, but theoretically > we could have a version of it that just cancels the timer. If you don't > hold the wiphy mutex already you could even wait for it to finish. It > just adds more complexity there, and I was trying to make it all a lot > more obvious :) Yeah, understandable. I think changing ath12k WMI event handling to use wiphy_work makes sense, running them in tasklet context feels overkill. I just need to write the patch :) But after that I hope we can switch to using wiphy mutex. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
