John W. Linville wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 04:00:05PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 06:51 -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
I don't know about the others, but long/short retry limits have users
(e.g., Host AP driver) and these drivers are currently forced to use a
hack to do this without this cleanup. Furthermore, this part does not
add a new ioctl.
It does, however, add new parameters and things that'd need to be
translated in the compat layer later. Hence, even there, I'd prefer to
add them directly into nl80211. However, the compat code for that
shouldn't be that bad, so I can see that as a softer target :) But I
don't want to see new ioctls for sure.
OK, I think we all agree that there are good parts to Jean's WE-21
patch. Below I've made an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff
(or to cut the baby in half)...
Is this patch acceptable to the group? Does it make things better?
Or worse? Did I leave-out anything that should still go in? Did I
take too much?
Let me know what you think...?
+ *
+ * The issue : wireless_send_event() is often called in interrupt context,
+ * while the Netlink layer can never be called in interrupt context.
+ * The fully formed RtNetlink events are queued, and then a tasklet is run
+ * to feed those to Netlink.
+ * The skb_queue is interrupt safe, and its lock is not held while calling
+ * Netlink, so there is no possibility of dealock.
^^^^^^^
You might as well fix the typo now. Otherwise, it looks OK to me. I've been running the original
patch for several days with no problems. I don't think you removed anything essential.
Larry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
