On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 14:47 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:10 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> The order should not matter except that we want the queue to be > >> cleared before processing core hints when doing restoration, otherwise > >> the next user hint in the queue can be bogus and it will prevent a > >> restore. > > > > I'm just thinking this temporary clearing could cause us to reject a > > reply from CRDA that's coming in at the same time that is due to a user > > request. > > Ah, I see, hmm well I tested this with: > > iw reg set US; iw reg set XA; iw reg set XB; iw reg set CR; iw dev > wlan0 disconnect; iw reg set FR; was CRDA running though? If so, it will probably reply right away -- I don't think you can hit the race easily. > and things were still being processed in the order sent. There is a > small race between the unlock of the reg_mutex on > restore_regulatory_settings() down until where we lock the > regulatory_hint_core() and regulatory_hint_user(). The chances of a > user regulatory hint coming in between is very low, I could not do it. > Then there is also a small race of getting a user reg hint on > restore_regulatory_settings() in between the regulatory_hint_user() > and the lock of the reg_mutex again for processing old regulatory > hints, but the worst that can happen in that case is we squeeze in a > user regulatory hint in before the other older regulatory hints, and > this is fine. > > I cannot see any other cases here where we'd block a request from userspace. No not block a request. I'm just thinking that this taking things off the list temporarily might erroneously discard a crda response. 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
