On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 11:08 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> void ___cfg80211_scan_done(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev, bool leak)
> {
> struct cfg80211_scan_request *request;
> @@ -47,8 +50,16 @@ void ___cfg80211_scan_done(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev, bool leak)
>
> if (request->aborted)
> nl80211_send_scan_aborted(rdev, wdev);
> - else
> + else {
> + if (request->flags & CFG80211_SCAN_FLAG_FLUSH) {
> + /* flush entries from previous scans */
> + spin_lock_bh(&rdev->bss_lock);
> + __cfg80211_bss_expire(rdev,
> + jiffies - request->scan_start);
I wonder if we should pass an absolute time instead? jiffies will
continue to advance while we iterate the list etc., if we pass the
absolute time in both cases we can avoid this small race condition.
The race really isn't important, but it still seems a bit cleaner to me
overall.
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
