Baochen Qiang <quic_bqiang@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 10/23/2024 9:29 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> +static void ath12k_mac_station_post_remove(struct ath12k *ar,
>> + struct ath12k_link_vif *arvif,
>> + struct ath12k_link_sta *arsta)
>> +{
>> + struct ieee80211_vif *vif = ath12k_ahvif_to_vif(arvif->ahvif);
>> + struct ieee80211_sta *sta = ath12k_ahsta_to_sta(arsta->ahsta);
>> + struct ath12k_sta *ahsta = arsta->ahsta;
>> + struct ath12k_peer *peer;
>> +
>> + lockdep_assert_wiphy(ath12k_ar_to_hw(ar)->wiphy);
>> +
>> + ath12k_mac_dec_num_stations(arvif, arsta);
>> +
>> + spin_lock_bh(&ar->ab->base_lock);
>> +
>> + peer = ath12k_peer_find(ar->ab, arvif->vdev_id, sta->addr);
>> + if (peer && peer->sta == sta) {
>> + ath12k_warn(ar->ab, "Found peer entry %pM n vdev %i after it was supposedly removed\n",
>> + vif->addr, arvif->vdev_id);
>> + peer->sta = NULL;
>> + list_del(&peer->list);
>> + kfree(peer);
>> + ar->num_peers--;
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&ar->ab->base_lock);
>> +
>> + kfree(arsta->rx_stats);
>> + arsta->rx_stats = NULL;
>> +
>> + if (arsta->link_id < IEEE80211_MLD_MAX_NUM_LINKS) {
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(ahsta->link[arsta->link_id], NULL);
>> + synchronize_rcu();
>> + ahsta->links_map &= ~(BIT(arsta->link_id));
>
> should we put this ahead of rcu_assign_pointer()?
I agree, I'll do that in v2.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
