On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 15:19 +0200, juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> It is possible that the op_remove_interface function is invoked exactly at
> the same time has hw recovery is started. In this case it is possible for the
> interface to be already removed in the op_remove_interface call, which
> currently leads to a kernel warning and a subsequent kernel crash.
>
> Fix this by ignoring the op_remove_interface call if the interface is already
> down at that point.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> index 31f0e2f..11b0477 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/wl12xx/main.c
> @@ -1157,10 +1157,16 @@ static void wl1271_op_remove_interface(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
> struct wl1271 *wl = hw->priv;
>
> mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
> - WARN_ON(wl->vif != vif);
> - __wl1271_op_remove_interface(wl);
> - mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
> + /*
> + * wl->vif can be null here if someone shuts down the interface
> + * just when hardware recovery has been started.
> + */
> + if (wl->vif) {
> + WARN_ON(wl->vif != vif);
> + __wl1271_op_remove_interface(wl);
> + }
Should you still remove the interface if the vif you received is wrong?
Surely, something is totally wrong if you get a different vif, but maybe
removing the interface here will just confuse things even more?
> + mutex_unlock(&wl->mutex);
> cancel_work_sync(&wl->recovery_work);
> }
>
--
Cheers,
Luca.
--
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
