Johannes Berg wrote: > 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(). > Oops! I missed that for my previous patch i added for two occurrences in the CAN sources. I'm currently compiling the patch for netif_rx_ti() and will post it in some minutes (for CAN and mac80211) when it runs without probs. Regards, Oliver -- 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
