On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 06:44 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 02:17:21AM -0800, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:52 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > > > + mutex_lock(&cfg80211_drv_mutex); > > > + regd = reg_get_current_rd(); > > > + mutex_unlock(&cfg80211_drv_mutex); > > > + > > > + if (!regd) > > > + goto out; > > > > Any reason you need to copy and can't just build the whole thing under > > lock? > > Glad you asked, we can lock the entire call or we can do the above to > copy. I picked a copy to not let a regular user (get reg can be called > by anyone) abuse the lock as cfg80211_drv_mutex is used in a lot of places, > I guess its silly but other's input on this is appreciated as well. Not sure > if the copy was the best choice. I don't really see much difference between locking to create a copy and locking to create a copy in a different format, do you? Except to create a copy needs to allocate memory which could take even longer. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
