On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 14:29, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-04-23 at 14:27 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > +++ b/net/wireless/core.c > > > > @@ -473,6 +473,10 @@ struct wiphy *wiphy_new_nm(const struct > > > > cfg80211_ops *ops, int sizeof_priv, > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > + /* add to debugfs */ > > > > + rdev->wiphy.debugfsdir = debugfs_create_dir(wiphy_name(&rdev->wiphy), > > > > + ieee80211_debugfs_dir); > > > > > > This cannot work, we haven't committed to the name of the wiphy yet at > > > this point. > > > > Maybe I am missing something, can you please elaborate here? > > > > Looking at the code, the default or requested wiphy name is configured > > just above this and the rename API "cfg80211_dev_rename()" takes care > > of renaming wiphy debugfs directory too. > > Yes, but I think wiphy_register() can still fail at this point, due to > name clashes or so? > > In any case, it'd be very strange to have a debugfs entry around when > the wiphy doesn't exist yet, and could possibly cause the same issue > that you fixed again, just through debugfs accesses? > Now I understood your point. Yeah it's definitely better to expose debugfs after the wiphy device is registered. > Can you take a look at the patch I sent? Sure I will take a look. -Sumit > > johannes >
