[PATCH 04/25] ipw2x00: simplify scan_event handling

[PATCH 04/25] ipw2x00: simplify scan_event handling

[Tejun Heo]

* Drop unnesssary delayd_work_pending() tests.

* Unify scan_event_{now|later} by using mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay
  for scan_event_now.

* Make ipw2200 scan_event handling match ipw2100 - use
  mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay for immediate scanning.

Only compile tested.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
---
Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Thanks.

 drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c | 31 ++++++++-----------------------
 drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.h |  3 +--
 drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c | 13 +++----------
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c
index d92b21a..b3ab7b7 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.c
@@ -2181,9 +2181,10 @@ static void isr_indicate_rf_kill(struct ipw2100_priv *priv, u32 status)
 	mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &priv->rf_kill, round_jiffies_relative(HZ));
 }
 
-static void send_scan_event(void *data)
+static void ipw2100_scan_event(struct work_struct *work)
 {
-	struct ipw2100_priv *priv = data;
+	struct ipw2100_priv *priv = container_of(work, struct ipw2100_priv,
+						 scan_event.work);
 	union iwreq_data wrqu;
 
 	wrqu.data.length = 0;
@@ -2191,18 +2192,6 @@ static void send_scan_event(void *data)
 	wireless_send_event(priv->net_dev, SIOCGIWSCAN, &wrqu, NULL);
 }
 
-static void ipw2100_scan_event_later(struct work_struct *work)
-{
-	send_scan_event(container_of(work, struct ipw2100_priv,
-					scan_event_later.work));
-}
-
-static void ipw2100_scan_event_now(struct work_struct *work)
-{
-	send_scan_event(container_of(work, struct ipw2100_priv,
-					scan_event_now));
-}
-
 static void isr_scan_complete(struct ipw2100_priv *priv, u32 status)
 {
 	IPW_DEBUG_SCAN("scan complete\n");
@@ -2212,13 +2201,11 @@ static void isr_scan_complete(struct ipw2100_priv *priv, u32 status)
 
 	/* Only userspace-requested scan completion events go out immediately */
 	if (!priv->user_requested_scan) {
-		if (!delayed_work_pending(&priv->scan_event_later))
-			schedule_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event_later,
-					      round_jiffies_relative(msecs_to_jiffies(4000)));
+		schedule_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event,
+				      round_jiffies_relative(msecs_to_jiffies(4000)));
 	} else {
 		priv->user_requested_scan = 0;
-		cancel_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event_later);
-		schedule_work(&priv->scan_event_now);
+		mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &priv->scan_event, 0);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -4459,8 +4446,7 @@ static void ipw2100_kill_works(struct ipw2100_priv *priv)
 	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&priv->wx_event_work);
 	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&priv->hang_check);
 	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&priv->rf_kill);
-	cancel_work_sync(&priv->scan_event_now);
-	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&priv->scan_event_later);
+	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&priv->scan_event);
 }
 
 static int ipw2100_tx_allocate(struct ipw2100_priv *priv)
@@ -6195,8 +6181,7 @@ static struct net_device *ipw2100_alloc_device(struct pci_dev *pci_dev,
 	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&priv->wx_event_work, ipw2100_wx_event_work);
 	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&priv->hang_check, ipw2100_hang_check);
 	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&priv->rf_kill, ipw2100_rf_kill);
-	INIT_WORK(&priv->scan_event_now, ipw2100_scan_event_now);
-	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&priv->scan_event_later, ipw2100_scan_event_later);
+	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&priv->scan_event, ipw2100_scan_event);
 
 	tasklet_init(&priv->irq_tasklet, (void (*)(unsigned long))
 		     ipw2100_irq_tasklet, (unsigned long)priv);
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.h
index 5fe17cb..c6d7879 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2100.h
@@ -577,8 +577,7 @@ struct ipw2100_priv {
 	struct delayed_work wx_event_work;
 	struct delayed_work hang_check;
 	struct delayed_work rf_kill;
-	struct work_struct scan_event_now;
-	struct delayed_work scan_event_later;
+	struct delayed_work scan_event;
 
 	int user_requested_scan;
 
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c
index 844f201..2c2d6db 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ipw2x00/ipw2200.c
@@ -4480,18 +4480,11 @@ static void handle_scan_event(struct ipw_priv *priv)
 {
 	/* Only userspace-requested scan completion events go out immediately */
 	if (!priv->user_requested_scan) {
-		if (!delayed_work_pending(&priv->scan_event))
-			schedule_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event,
-					      round_jiffies_relative(msecs_to_jiffies(4000)));
+		schedule_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event,
+				      round_jiffies_relative(msecs_to_jiffies(4000)));
 	} else {
-		union iwreq_data wrqu;
-
 		priv->user_requested_scan = 0;
-		cancel_delayed_work(&priv->scan_event);
-
-		wrqu.data.length = 0;
-		wrqu.data.flags = 0;
-		wireless_send_event(priv->net_dev, SIOCGIWSCAN, &wrqu, NULL);
+		mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &priv->scan_event, 0);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
1.8.0.2

[PATCH 06/25] libertas: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

* delayed_work_pending() test in lbs_cfg_scan() is spurious as
  priv->scan_req can't be NULL w/ scan_work pending; otherwise,
  lbs_scan_worker() will segfault.  Drop it.  BTW, the synchronization
  around scan_work seems racy.  There's nothing synchronizing accesses
  to scan related fields in lbs_private.

* Drop work_pending() test from if_sdio_reset_card().  As
  work_pending() becomes %false before if_sdio_reset_card_worker()
  starts executing, it doesn't really protect anything.  reset_host
  may change between mmc_remove_host() and mmc_add_host().  Make
  if_sdio_reset_card_worker() cache the target mmc_host so that it
  isn't affected by if_sdio_reset_card() racing with it.

Only compile tested.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
Cc: libertas-dev@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
---
Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Thanks.

 drivers/net/wireless/libertas/cfg.c     | 2 +-
 drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_sdio.c | 9 ++++-----
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/cfg.c b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/cfg.c
index ec6d5d6..ec30cd1 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/cfg.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/cfg.c
@@ -814,7 +814,7 @@ static int lbs_cfg_scan(struct wiphy *wiphy,
 
 	lbs_deb_enter(LBS_DEB_CFG80211);
 
-	if (priv->scan_req || delayed_work_pending(&priv->scan_work)) {
+	if (priv->scan_req) {
 		/* old scan request not yet processed */
 		ret = -EAGAIN;
 		goto out;
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_sdio.c
index 739309e..8c53c17 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/libertas/if_sdio.c
@@ -1074,6 +1074,8 @@ static struct mmc_host *reset_host;
 
 static void if_sdio_reset_card_worker(struct work_struct *work)
 {
+	struct mmc_host *target = reset_host;
+
 	/*
 	 * The actual reset operation must be run outside of lbs_thread. This
 	 * is because mmc_remove_host() will cause the device to be instantly
@@ -1085,8 +1087,8 @@ static void if_sdio_reset_card_worker(struct work_struct *work)
 	 */
 
 	pr_info("Resetting card...");
-	mmc_remove_host(reset_host);
-	mmc_add_host(reset_host);
+	mmc_remove_host(target);
+	mmc_add_host(target);
 }
 static DECLARE_WORK(card_reset_work, if_sdio_reset_card_worker);
 
@@ -1094,9 +1096,6 @@ static void if_sdio_reset_card(struct lbs_private *priv)
 {
 	struct if_sdio_card *card = priv->card;
 
-	if (work_pending(&card_reset_work))
-		return;
-
 	reset_host = card->func->card->host;
 	schedule_work(&card_reset_work);
 }
-- 
1.8.0.2

[PATCH 07/25] mwifiex: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

Drop work_pending() test from mwifiex_sdio_card_reset().  As
work_pending() becomes %false before sdio_card_reset_worker() starts
executing, it doesn't really protect anything.  reset_host may change
between mmc_remove_host() and mmc_add_host().  Make
sdio_card_reset_worker() cache the target mmc_host so that it isn't
affected by mwifiex_sdio_card_reset() racing with it.

Only compile tested.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Bing Zhao <bzhao@marvell.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
---
Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Thanks.

 drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c | 9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
index 5a1c1d0..f2874c3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
@@ -1752,6 +1752,8 @@ mwifiex_update_mp_end_port(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter, u16 port)
 static struct mmc_host *reset_host;
 static void sdio_card_reset_worker(struct work_struct *work)
 {
+	struct mmc_host *target = reset_host;
+
 	/* The actual reset operation must be run outside of driver thread.
 	 * This is because mmc_remove_host() will cause the device to be
 	 * instantly destroyed, and the driver then needs to end its thread,
@@ -1761,10 +1763,10 @@ static void sdio_card_reset_worker(struct work_struct *work)
 	 */
 
 	pr_err("Resetting card...\n");
-	mmc_remove_host(reset_host);
+	mmc_remove_host(target);
 	/* 20ms delay is based on experiment with sdhci controller */
 	mdelay(20);
-	mmc_add_host(reset_host);
+	mmc_add_host(target);
 }
 static DECLARE_WORK(card_reset_work, sdio_card_reset_worker);
 
@@ -1773,9 +1775,6 @@ static void mwifiex_sdio_card_reset(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
 {
 	struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card;
 
-	if (work_pending(&card_reset_work))
-		return;
-
 	reset_host = card->func->card->host;
 	schedule_work(&card_reset_work);
 }
-- 
1.8.0.2

[PATCH 09/25] wl1251: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
and quite a few of them are buggy.

Remove unnecessary pending tests from wl1251.  Only compile tested.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
---
Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Thanks.

 drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c
index db719f7..b9e27b9 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wl1251/ps.c
@@ -68,8 +68,7 @@ int wl1251_ps_elp_wakeup(struct wl1251 *wl)
 	unsigned long timeout, start;
 	u32 elp_reg;
 
-	if (delayed_work_pending(&wl->elp_work))
-		cancel_delayed_work(&wl->elp_work);
+	cancel_delayed_work(&wl->elp_work);
 
 	if (!wl->elp)
 		return 0;
-- 
1.8.0.2

[PATCH 14/25] rfkill: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
and quite a few of them are buggy.

Remove unnecessary pending tests from rfkill.  Only compile
tested.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
---
Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Thanks.

 net/rfkill/input.c | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/rfkill/input.c b/net/rfkill/input.c
index c9d931e..b85107b 100644
--- a/net/rfkill/input.c
+++ b/net/rfkill/input.c
@@ -148,11 +148,9 @@ static unsigned long rfkill_ratelimit(const unsigned long last)
 
 static void rfkill_schedule_ratelimited(void)
 {
-	if (delayed_work_pending(&rfkill_op_work))
-		return;
-	schedule_delayed_work(&rfkill_op_work,
-			      rfkill_ratelimit(rfkill_last_scheduled));
-	rfkill_last_scheduled = jiffies;
+	if (schedule_delayed_work(&rfkill_op_work,
+				  rfkill_ratelimit(rfkill_last_scheduled)))
+		rfkill_last_scheduled = jiffies;
 }
 
 static void rfkill_schedule_global_op(enum rfkill_sched_op op)
-- 
1.8.0.2

Re: [PATCH 09/25] wl1251: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Luciano Coelho]

On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 17:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
> and quite a few of them are buggy.
> 
> Remove unnecessary pending tests from wl1251.  Only compile tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> through the workqueue tree if necessary.
> 
> Thanks.

It's probably easier if you take it via your tree.  This driver doesn't
get patches very often, so I doubt there will be any conflicts.

Thank you!

Acked-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>

--
Luca.

Re: [PATCH 14/25] rfkill: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Johannes Berg]

On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 17:57 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
> and quite a few of them are buggy.
> 
> Remove unnecessary pending tests from rfkill.  Only compile
> tested.

Looks fine to me, feel free to route through your tree -- nobody changes
rfkill much (famous last words...) :-)

johannes

RE: [PATCH 07/25] mwifiex: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Bing Zhao]

Hi Tejun,

Thanks for the patch.

> Drop work_pending() test from mwifiex_sdio_card_reset().  As
> work_pending() becomes %false before sdio_card_reset_worker() starts
> executing, it doesn't really protect anything.  reset_host may change
> between mmc_remove_host() and mmc_add_host().  Make
> sdio_card_reset_worker() cache the target mmc_host so that it isn't
> affected by mwifiex_sdio_card_reset() racing with it.
> 
> Only compile tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Bing Zhao <bzhao@marvell.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org

Acked-by: Bing Zhao <bzhao@marvell.com>

> ---
> Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> through the workqueue tree if necessary.

If you are taking other patches in this series through your tree, please take this one too.

Thanks,
Bing

> 
> Thanks.
> 
>  drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c | 9 ++++-----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
> index 5a1c1d0..f2874c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/sdio.c
> @@ -1752,6 +1752,8 @@ mwifiex_update_mp_end_port(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter, u16 port)
>  static struct mmc_host *reset_host;
>  static void sdio_card_reset_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
> +	struct mmc_host *target = reset_host;
> +
>  	/* The actual reset operation must be run outside of driver thread.
>  	 * This is because mmc_remove_host() will cause the device to be
>  	 * instantly destroyed, and the driver then needs to end its thread,
> @@ -1761,10 +1763,10 @@ static void sdio_card_reset_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>  	 */
> 
>  	pr_err("Resetting card...\n");
> -	mmc_remove_host(reset_host);
> +	mmc_remove_host(target);
>  	/* 20ms delay is based on experiment with sdhci controller */
>  	mdelay(20);
> -	mmc_add_host(reset_host);
> +	mmc_add_host(target);
>  }
>  static DECLARE_WORK(card_reset_work, sdio_card_reset_worker);
> 
> @@ -1773,9 +1775,6 @@ static void mwifiex_sdio_card_reset(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
>  {
>  	struct sdio_mmc_card *card = adapter->card;
> 
> -	if (work_pending(&card_reset_work))
> -		return;
> -
>  	reset_host = card->func->card->host;
>  	schedule_work(&card_reset_work);
>  }
> --
> 1.8.0.2

Re: [PATCH 07/25] mwifiex: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 02:29:57PM -0800, Bing Zhao wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> 
> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> > Drop work_pending() test from mwifiex_sdio_card_reset().  As
> > work_pending() becomes %false before sdio_card_reset_worker() starts
> > executing, it doesn't really protect anything.  reset_host may change
> > between mmc_remove_host() and mmc_add_host().  Make
> > sdio_card_reset_worker() cache the target mmc_host so that it isn't
> > affected by mwifiex_sdio_card_reset() racing with it.
> > 
> > Only compile tested.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Bing Zhao <bzhao@marvell.com>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> 
> Acked-by: Bing Zhao <bzhao@marvell.com>
> 
> > ---
> > Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> > through the workqueue tree if necessary.
> 
> If you are taking other patches in this series through your tree, please take this one too.

Applied to wq/for-3.9-cleanups.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [PATCH 09/25] wl1251: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 04:14:29PM +0200, Luciano Coelho wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 17:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> > before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
> > and quite a few of them are buggy.
> > 
> > Remove unnecessary pending tests from wl1251.  Only compile tested.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> > Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> > through the workqueue tree if necessary.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> It's probably easier if you take it via your tree.  This driver doesn't
> get patches very often, so I doubt there will be any conflicts.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Acked-by: Luciano Coelho <coelho@ti.com>

Applied to wq/for-3.9-cleanups.  Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [PATCH 14/25] rfkill: don't use [delayed_]work_pending()

[Tejun Heo]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 09:22:13PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 17:57 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > There's no need to test whether a (delayed) work item in pending
> > before queueing, flushing or cancelling it.  Most uses are unnecessary
> > and quite a few of them are buggy.
> > 
> > Remove unnecessary pending tests from rfkill.  Only compile
> > tested.
> 
> Looks fine to me, feel free to route through your tree -- nobody changes
> rfkill much (famous last words...) :-)

Applied to wq/for-3.9-cleanups w/ your Acked-by added.  Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [PATCH 04/25] ipw2x00: simplify scan_event handling

[Stanislav Yakovlev]

Hello, Tejun,

On 22 December 2012 04:56, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Drop unnesssary delayd_work_pending() tests.
>
> * Unify scan_event_{now|later} by using mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay
>   for scan_event_now.
>
> * Make ipw2200 scan_event handling match ipw2100 - use
>   mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay for immediate scanning.
>
> Only compile tested.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@gmail.com>
> Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> through the workqueue tree if necessary.

Please, feel free to take it through your tree.

Acked-by: Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@gmail.com>

Thanks!
Stanislav.

Re: [PATCH 04/25] ipw2x00: simplify scan_event handling

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:02:27AM +0300, Stanislav Yakovlev wrote:
> Hello, Tejun,
> 
> On 22 December 2012 04:56, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Drop unnesssary delayd_work_pending() tests.
> >
> > * Unify scan_event_{now|later} by using mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay
> >   for scan_event_now.
> >
> > * Make ipw2200 scan_event handling match ipw2100 - use
> >   mod_delayed_work() w/ 0 delay for immediate scanning.
> >
> > Only compile tested.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@gmail.com>
> > Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> > ---
> > Please let me know how this patch should be routed.  I can take it
> > through the workqueue tree if necessary.
> 
> Please, feel free to take it through your tree.
> 
> Acked-by: Stanislav Yakovlev <stas.yakovlev@gmail.com>

Queued to wq/for-3.9-cleanups.  Thanks!

-- 
tejun