From: Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>
To: Ulrich Kunitz <kune@deine-taler.de>
Cc: dsd@gentoo.org, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ieee80211softmac: Fix errors related to the work_struct changes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:40:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200612101940.48996.mb@bu3sch.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061210183536.GC29871@p15091797.pureserver.info>
On Sunday 10 December 2006 19:35, Ulrich Kunitz wrote:
> On 06-12-10 18:49 Michael Buesch wrote:
>
> > On Sunday 10 December 2006 18:39, Ulrich Kunitz wrote:
> > > The signature of work functions changed recently from a context
> > > pointer to the work structure pointer. This caused a problem in
> > > the ieee80211softmac code, because the ieee80211softmac_assox_work
> > > function has been called directly with a parameter explicitly
> > > casted to (void*). This compiled correctly but resulted in a
> > > softlock, because mutex_lock was called with the wrong memory
> > > address. The patch fixes the problem. Another issue was a wrong
> > > call of the schedule_work function. Softmac works again and this
> > > fixes the problem I mentioned earlier in the zd1211rw rx tasklet
> > > patch. The patch is against Linus' tree (commit af1713e0).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ulrich Kunitz <kune@deine-taler.de>
> > > ---
> > > net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c | 6 +++---
> > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c b/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c
> > > index eec1a1d..a824852 100644
> > > --- a/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c
> > > +++ b/net/ieee80211/softmac/ieee80211softmac_assoc.c
> > > @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static void
> > > ieee80211softmac_assoc_notify_scan(struct net_device *dev, int event_type, void *context)
> > > {
> > > struct ieee80211softmac_device *mac = ieee80211_priv(dev);
> > > - ieee80211softmac_assoc_work((void*)mac);
> > > + ieee80211softmac_assoc_work(&mac->associnfo.work.work);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void
> > > @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ ieee80211softmac_assoc_notify_auth(struc
> > >
> > > switch (event_type) {
> > > case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTHENTICATED:
> > > - ieee80211softmac_assoc_work((void*)mac);
> > > + ieee80211softmac_assoc_work(&mac->associnfo.work.work);
> > > break;
> > > case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTH_FAILED:
> > > case IEEE80211SOFTMAC_EVENT_AUTH_TIMEOUT:
> > > @@ -438,7 +438,7 @@ ieee80211softmac_try_reassoc(struct ieee
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(&mac->lock, flags);
> > > mac->associnfo.associating = 1;
> > > - schedule_work(&mac->associnfo.work);
> > > + schedule_delayed_work(&mac->associnfo.work, 0);
> >
> > Why do you use a zero delay here? What does that fix?
> >
>
> The problem is that you there are now different work structures:
> struct work_struct and struct delayed_work. The quick fix seems to
> have been to change all old work_structs as associnfo's work to
> delayed_work. The way the structures are designed calling
> schedule_work or schedule_delayed_work doesn't matter, but you
> will get a gcc warning, because the pointer types are not
> identical. This change works around the warning in the same way as
> the other schedule_work calls for associnfo's work.
>
> I'm not sure, whether the breaking of the workqueue API is really
> worth it. What I see is that the change introduced choices and
> choices make things more complex.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. In this case this patch is
ACKed as well.
--
Greetings Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-10 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-10 17:39 [PATCH] ieee80211softmac: Fix errors related to the work_struct changes Ulrich Kunitz
2006-12-10 17:49 ` Michael Buesch
2006-12-10 18:35 ` Ulrich Kunitz
2006-12-10 18:40 ` Michael Buesch [this message]
2006-12-10 18:40 ` Andrew Morton
2006-12-11 17:34 ` Larry Finger
2006-12-11 4:24 ` Larry Finger
2006-12-11 21:49 ` John W. Linville
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200612101940.48996.mb@bu3sch.de \
--to=mb@bu3sch.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dsd@gentoo.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=kune@deine-taler.de \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).