Hi Marc,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:10:54PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 12:42 PM, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > This patch adds a warning if the ieee80211_rx function is called from an
> > irq context which should never happen.
>
> do you mean hard and/or softirq here?
>
Comment for in_softirq() is "in_softirq - Are we currently processing
softirq or have bh disabled?"
Then we checking is (softirq_count() == 0) if true then print warning.
in_softirq is declared as:
#define in_softirq() (softirq_count())
So (softirq_count() == 0) is identically with (!in_softirq()).
Translating the "deMorgan law" to the above sentence:
We print a warning when we are not in a softirq context and have bh
enabled.
So we need to be in a softirq context or bh enabled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/mac802154/rx.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/mac802154/rx.c b/net/mac802154/rx.c
> > index 2851a3f..c4df321 100644
> > --- a/net/mac802154/rx.c
> > +++ b/net/mac802154/rx.c
> > @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ fail:
> >
> > void ieee802154_rx(struct ieee802154_hw *hw, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(softirq_count() == 0);
> > +
>
> better use in_irq() or in_softirq(), see:
>
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/preempt_mask.h#L64
>
Okay, maybe want to fix that also in:
http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/net/mac80211/rx.c#L3347
btw. I will also fix in this patch s/80211/802154/ at several places. I
should do a grep before.
Are you sure we can use in_irq here? I would change it to:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_softirq());
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wpan" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
