Am Montag, 16. Januar 2012, 20:25:14 schrieb Johannes Berg: > On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 20:22 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > Am Montag, 16. Januar 2012, 17:51:33 schrieb Johannes Berg: > > > On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 16:42 +0100, Helmut Schaa wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Helmut Schaa <helmut.schaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I'm currently writing some code for rt2800 that requires the driver > > > > to stop sending to a specific station for a short period of time > > > > (until all AMPDUs are finished to work around a hw issue that affects > > > > rate sampling with minstrel_ht). I decided to give > > > > ieee80211_sta_block_awake a try, however, the machine sometimes locked > > > > up while running some performance tests but due to a hw watchdog I > > > > wasn't able to get any sort of backtrace :( > > > > > > > > So, while doing some review of the ieee80211_sta_block_awake I came > > > > across this and wondered if softirqs should be disabled when delivering > > > > the buffered frames in sta_unblock. > > > > > > > > Using this patch I cannot reproduce the lockup anymore. > > > > > > > > So, is there any special reason this single code path in sta_unblock > > > > doesn't disable softirqs? > > > > > > This seems right > > > > The patch or the current approach without disable_bh? > > The patch. Thanks :) -- 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
