On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 09:17 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> + spin_lock_bh(&rdev->beacon_registrations_lock); > > ... > >> + spin_unlock_bh(&rdev->beacon_registrations_lock); > > > > I have a feeling this is incorrect, this is called with BHs disabled, so > > if we disable/enable BHs here we end up with BHs enabled even if the > > caller wanted them disabled, no? > > > > So I suppose unless we need to be able to call this from hard interrupt > > in some driver (unlikely) we should add a change like this: > > I get confused with the various types of spin-locks, > and I just copied this code from the mgt frames logic. Uh, that looks like a bug there as well then? > I did run some tests and my code seems stable, but I could > just be getting lucky. Hmm I guess it depends on the driver, I suppose enabling BHs inside one doesn't actually do anything, and it would only really matter for drivers using ieee80211_rx_ni()? > Do you want me to roll in your changes below and re-submit, or > do you want to just make the updates? I can do the update, I guess I'll sort out the mgmt frame part as well. 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
