Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I don't know how expensive in_interrupt() is, but it IMO should be >> avoided when the context for a code section can be determined in >> another way. > > What if we just get the fix merged and discuss later whether it's > worth to optimize a picosecond or not?? My patch fixes the _bug_. > You can merge a more "efficient" fix later that saves one or two CPU > cycles. I agree with Michael. The bug is real and I have verified that Michael's patch fixes the issue. Better to apply the patch now, it's trivial to change the implementation if/when the network stack has support for this. -- Kalle Valo -- 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
