On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:35:58PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 17:34 +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:53:00PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 16:49 +0100, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > > > > > * This function may not be called in IRQ context. Calls to this function > > > > * for a single hardware must be synchronized against each other. Calls > > > > - * to this function and ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe() may not be mixed > > > > - * for a single hardware. > > > > + * to this function, ieee80211_tx_status_ni() and ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe() > > > > + * may not be mixed for a single hardware. > > > > > > I'm ok with this, although technically you can mix > > > ieee80211_tx_status_ni() and ieee80211_tx_status(), just not either or > > > both of them with _irqsafe(). > > > > I copied these from ieee80211_rx() etc. since I wasn't sure if there's > > not some subtlety I didn't get. One can mix ieee80211_rx() and > > ieee80211_rx_ni(), too, right? > > Yes. Note that all this doesn't make any sense though, since you must > never call them concurrently. And it's hard to imagine a situation where > a single driver calls _ni and non-_ni versions, while making sure they > can't both happen at the same time ... Maybe someone can clarify the wording of the comments and send a follow-on patch? Thanks, John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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
