On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:21 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Johannes Berg >> <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 21:36 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> >> >> >> + if (wiphy_idx_valid(last_request->wiphy_idx)) >> >> + request_wiphy = wiphy_idx_to_wiphy(last_request->wiphy_idx); >> > >> > All this seems pointless, wiphy_idx_to_wiphy will just return NULL if >> > the index isn't valid. This is in a number of places, and it's not like >> > it being invalid will be happening often so we'd have to optimise for >> > it. >> >> The check can be removed if the WARNING is removed on >> wiphy_idx_to_wiphy(). I left it as I figured it'd be good to leave the >> warning, your call. > > Dunno, I think no warning is probably better if more than half the > callers would have to check first... Also, the warning seems like it > could spuriously trigger if a wiphy is removed? Yeah I think you're right. > One other thing I noticed - why is there a conditional assert on the > mutex? Shouldn't it always be locked? The conditional assert on the mutex is there because on cfg80211 you don't want to hold a mutex as that would mean userspace gets stuck with one. I believe lockdep complained to me about it as exactly that. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
