From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:50853 "EHLO mail-ia0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751308Ab2LDTII (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:08:08 -0500 Received: by mail-ia0-f174.google.com with SMTP id y25so3330345iay.19 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:08:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:07:30 -0500 From: Bob Copeland To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [RFC v2 14/18] regulatory: clarify locking rules and assertions Message-ID: <20121204190730.GC29880@localhost> (sfid-20121204_200812_390521_3F7E1937) References: <1354632540-21207-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <1354632540-21207-15-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1354632540-21207-15-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 03:48:56PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > Many places that currently check that cfg80211_ > The function needs to hold the cfg80211_mutex as > it uses the global cfg80211_regdomain variable, so > add the lock assertion to it and fix one of the > callers that doesn't hold that mutex. Something missing in the description there? -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com