From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([5.9.151.49]:56020 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755691AbcGHP0o (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:26:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1467991593.4837.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20160708_172734_830413_2B86028B) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Improve wireless netdev detection From: Johannes Berg To: Denis Kenzior , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:26:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <577FC51E.7010901@gmail.com> (sfid-20160708_172209_534342_D9E86FEB) References: <1467875330-7835-1-git-send-email-denkenz@gmail.com> <1467973953.4837.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <577FC51E.7010901@gmail.com> (sfid-20160708_172209_534342_D9E86FEB) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 10:22 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: >  > Apologies, I've only been looking at the kernel side for several > days, so my understanding is still incomplete. > > I was looking at mac80211/iface.c: ieee80211_if_add() which seems to  > handle NL80211_IFTYPE_P2P_DEVICE specially by not > creating/registering a  > net_device object.  For some reason I thought that this object was  > registered somewhere later, but my understanding was incorrect.  So > the  entire 'side effect' paragraph above does not apply. Ok, makes sense. > Are you okay with the general approach?  I see no issues with sending these events out. I'd like them to actually be reliable (if present) though, not double as you'd implied - but I didn't really understand in which cases you were expecting issues, was it only P2P-Device? >  Are there any locking issues I  > might be overlooking? Not that I'm aware of. All of the netdev/wdev handling should be protected by RTNL. johannes