On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:04 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Johannes Berg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 07:59 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> > >> >> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static void __ieee80211_scan_completed_finish(struct >> >> ieee80211_hw *hw, >> >> } >> >> >> >> mutex_lock(&local->mtx); >> >> - ieee80211_recalc_idle(local); >> >> + ieee80211_recalc_idle_force(local); >> >> mutex_unlock(&local->mtx); >> > >> > This is the change that I don't think is necessary. >> >> Without this resume fails. > > In what situation? When you just suspend while things are up&running, or > if you suspend with interfaces down?
I believe Paul was suspending when the interface is up and running. > It doesn't make sense anyway, so > something's going on in the rest of the scan code -- we should be > canceling scans properly when going down and when suspending, well > before any of this becomes relevant. The issue might be we race to stop the device prior to canceling a scan. Do you see that being possible? Luis _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
