On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 11:15 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 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.
jiffies are also complicated by suspend/resume. Absolute time would be
better.
Dan
--
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
