On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 12:50 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > 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. Maybe. Note that the wiphy lock _can_ create delays etc. here, if you're doing other configuration work at the same time, or similar. Though I guess eventually you need locking there anyway, to access the HW. So it can be a bit of a trade-off. I expect this will evolve over time even in mac80211, though so far we haven't seen any bad effect from it. johannes
