From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f195.google.com ([209.85.192.195]:33052 "EHLO mail-pf0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755737AbcGHPb2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:31:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f195.google.com with SMTP id c74so8443971pfb.0 for ; Fri, 08 Jul 2016 08:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Improve wireless netdev detection To: Johannes Berg , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org References: <1467875330-7835-1-git-send-email-denkenz@gmail.com> <1467973953.4837.3.camel@sipsolutions.net> <577FC51E.7010901@gmail.com> <1467991593.4837.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: Denis Kenzior Message-ID: <577FC74E.3080903@gmail.com> (sfid-20160708_173135_150419_A2B98746) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:31:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1467991593.4837.7.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Johannes, >> 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? > That seems to be the only special case. At least I didn't find any other situations where a NEW_INTERFACE command can be called without a corresponding net_device being created. >> 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. > That was my understanding as well. Thanks. Okay, let me spin up a v2 with patches 2+3 and 4+5 squished together. Or do you want one big patch? Regards, -Denis