On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 11:54:29AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 03:47 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> >IIUC, Paul suggested that you should use rcu_dereference_check() here
> >instead as the protected one is not safe in this context.
>
> This patch also fails to fix the problem. Did I do what Paul suggested?
That is indeed what I suggested!
What locks does lockdep say are held?
Thanx, Paul
> Index: wireless-testing-new/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> ===================================================================
> --- wireless-testing-new.orig/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> +++ wireless-testing-new/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ void ieee80211_assign_tid_tx(struct sta_
> static inline struct tid_ampdu_tx *
> rcu_dereference_protected_tid_tx(struct sta_info *sta, int tid)
> {
> - return rcu_dereference_protected(sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_tx[tid],
> + return rcu_dereference_check(sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_tx[tid],
> lockdep_is_held(&sta->lock) ||
> lockdep_is_held(&sta->ampdu_mlme.mtx));
> }
>
--
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
