Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:27:13 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
To: Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <zajec5@gmail.com>,
	Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Franky Lin <franky.lin@broadcom.com>,
	Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@broadcom.com>,
	Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieterpg@broadcom.com>,
	"linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER"
	<brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX PATCH 1/2] brcmfmac: Check rtnl_lock is locked when
 removing interface
Message-Id: <20160816112713.7fd25da28d3737aa7b72d2a2@kernel.org> (sfid-20160816_042801_758883_D20BF79A)
In-Reply-To: <15e43df4-b8cc-8612-472e-80634cf27cac@broadcom.com>
References: <147125403645.9434.8008546579326856373.stgit@devbox>
	<147125405701.9434.12911635695339175773.stgit@devbox>
	<5bb6e373-e110-b1ac-6f65-fdf2f9f059fc@gmail.com>
	<87wpjib8pb.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com>
	<CACna6ryuN_qDrVwAbS5P9mfhjMwv2hNeTqEzTQ=WxvP1V=zHXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<15e43df4-b8cc-8612-472e-80634cf27cac@broadcom.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 23:44:05 +0200
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 15-8-2016 13:52, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> > On 15 August 2016 at 12:57, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: a63b09872c1d ("brcmfmac: delete interface directly in code that sent fw request")
> >>> Acked-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> >>>
> >>> Kalle: I'm acking this as bugfix for 4.8 release.
> >>
> >> Ok. I'll wait few days for more comments before I apply this.

Thanks!

> > 
> > Sure.
> > 
> > 
> >> (I assume you are talking only about patch 1)
> > 
> > Yes, I'll leave mutex vs. spinlock to the experts :)
> 
> Don't know who the experts are. Surely not me :-p
> 
> I made an uneducated design decision using a mutex for this. The
> reasoning for using a regular spinlock make sense. So I will go and ack
> that patch.

As far as I can see, that change is very local and
at least my environment it works well :)

Regards,

> 
> Regards,
> Arend


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>