On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Johannes Berg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 23:20 +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> On Tuesday 17 June 2008 22:59:52 David Ellingsworth wrote:
>> > I ran into this error today from a kernel I built last night based on
>> > the latest wireless-testing branch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it
>> > looks to be b43legacy related. I'm a bit new to kernel debugging but
>> > can try to provide additional information if instructions on how to do
>> > so are provided.
>>
>> No, this is a mac80211 bug
>
> Can you try the patch below?
>
> johannes
>
> --- everything.orig/net/mac80211/sta_info.h 2008-06-18 10:07:24.000000000
> +0200
> +++ everything/net/mac80211/sta_info.h 2008-06-18 11:58:32.000000000 +0200
> @@ -164,6 +164,7 @@ struct sta_ampdu_mlme {
> * @aid: STA's unique AID (1..2007, 0 = not assigned yet),
> * only used in AP (and IBSS?) mode
> * @flags: STA flags, see &enum ieee80211_sta_info_flags
> + * @flaglock: spinlock for flags accesses
> * @ps_tx_buf: buffer of frames to transmit to this station
> * when it leaves power saving state
> * @tx_filtered: buffer of frames we already tried to transmit
> @@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ struct sta_info {
> struct rate_control_ref *rate_ctrl;
> void *rate_ctrl_priv;
> spinlock_t lock;
> + spinlock_t flaglock;
> struct ieee80211_ht_info ht_info;
> u64 supp_rates[IEEE80211_NUM_BANDS];
> u8 addr[ETH_ALEN];
> @@ -198,7 +200,10 @@ struct sta_info {
> */
> u8 pin_status;
>
> - /* frequently updated information, locked with lock spinlock */
> + /*
> + * frequently updated, locked with own spinlock (flaglock),
> + * use the accessors defined below
> + */
> u32 flags;
>
> /*
> @@ -293,34 +298,41 @@ static inline enum plink_state sta_plink
>
> static inline void set_sta_flags(struct sta_info *sta, const u32 flags)
> {
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + unsigned long irqfl;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> sta->flags |= flags;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> }
>
> static inline void clear_sta_flags(struct sta_info *sta, const u32 flags)
> {
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + unsigned long irqfl;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> sta->flags &= ~flags;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> }
>
> static inline void set_and_clear_sta_flags(struct sta_info *sta,
> const u32 set, const u32 clear)
> {
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + unsigned long irqfl;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> sta->flags |= set;
> sta->flags &= ~clear;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> }
>
> static inline u32 test_sta_flags(struct sta_info *sta, const u32 flags)
> {
> u32 ret;
> + unsigned long irqfl;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> ret = sta->flags & flags;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -329,11 +341,12 @@ static inline u32 test_and_clear_sta_fla
> const u32 flags)
> {
> u32 ret;
> + unsigned long irqfl;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> ret = sta->flags & flags;
> sta->flags &= ~flags;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -341,10 +354,11 @@ static inline u32 test_and_clear_sta_fla
> static inline u32 get_sta_flags(struct sta_info *sta)
> {
> u32 ret;
> + unsigned long irqfl;
>
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
> ret = sta->flags;
> - spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sta->flaglock, irqfl);
>
> return ret;
> }
> --- everything.orig/net/mac80211/sta_info.c 2008-06-18 11:56:44.000000000
> +0200
> +++ everything/net/mac80211/sta_info.c 2008-06-18 11:56:58.000000000 +0200
> @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ struct sta_info *sta_info_alloc(struct i
> return NULL;
>
> spin_lock_init(&sta->lock);
> + spin_lock_init(&sta->flaglock);
>
> memcpy(sta->addr, addr, ETH_ALEN);
> sta->local = local;
>
>
>
Yes, this patch seems to correct the issue. I no longer receive the
kernel warning.
Regards,
David Ellingsworth
_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
