On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 17:10 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 30 September 2009 16:54:26 Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 17:47 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > FWIW, I think in mac80211 the in_interrupt() check can never return true > > since we postpone all RX to the tasklet. But the tasklet seems to be ok > > -- so should it really be in_interrupt()? > > I think a tasklet is also in_interrupt(), because it's a softirq. Ah, yes, indeed, in_interrupt() vs. in_irq(). johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
