From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail30f.wh2.ocn.ne.jp ([220.111.41.203]:2892 "HELO mail30f.wh2.ocn.ne.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754970Ab0FOBHc (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:07:32 -0400 Received: from vs3002.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (125.206.180.165) by mail30f.wh2.ocn.ne.jp (RS ver 1.0.95vs) with SMTP id 5-070754049 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:07:30 +0900 (JST) From: Bruno Randolf To: Bob Copeland Subject: Re: [ath5k-devel] [PATCH] ath5k: disable all tasklets while resetting Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:07:21 +0900 References: <20100611101221.26538.46913.stgit@tt-desk> <201006141050.59607.br1@einfach.org> <20100614114302.GA15017@hash.localnet> In-Reply-To: <20100614114302.GA15017@hash.localnet> Cc: Johannes Berg , ath5k-devel@lists.ath5k.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linville@tuxdriver.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <201006151007.21708.br1@einfach.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon June 14 2010 20:43:02 you wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:50:59AM +0900, Bruno Randolf wrote: > > we disable interrupts right after disabling the tasklets, so they should > > not be scheduled again, right? actually, we should disable interrupts > > first, and then disable tasklets... but then it should be safe, no? > > Disable interrupts then tasklet_kill should do it. what's wrong with first disable interrupts and tasklet_disable? bruno