On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 17:31 -0400, Miles Lane wrote:
> > --- wireless-testing.orig/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-tx.c 2010-06-07 21:17:56.000000000 +0200
> > +++ wireless-testing/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-tx.c 2010-06-07 21:18:04.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -1146,6 +1146,7 @@ static void iwlagn_tx_status(struct iwl_
> > struct ieee80211_sta *sta;
> > struct iwl_station_priv *sta_priv;
> >
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > sta = ieee80211_find_sta(priv->vif, hdr->addr1);
> > if (sta) {
> > sta_priv = (void *)sta->drv_priv;
> > @@ -1154,6 +1155,7 @@ static void iwlagn_tx_status(struct iwl_
> > atomic_dec_return(&sta_priv->pending_frames) == 0)
> > ieee80211_sta_block_awake(priv->hw, sta, false);
> > }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe(priv->hw, skb);
> > }
> >
> >
> >
>
> Unclean patch application - is this to be expected?
>
> patching file drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-agn-tx.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 1125 (offset -21 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 1134 (offset -21 lines).
Didn't pay much attention what tree I generated it against since I knew
this code hasn't changed in a while ... so the offset looks perfectly
fine. Fuzz I'd have been surprised about :)
johannes
--
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
