Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.63.242]:37322 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932960AbeFTIpT (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 04:45:19 -0400 Message-ID: <1529478069.3130.1.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20180620_104525_661966_DC831A36) Subject: Re: [BUG] mac80211: Using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code: iwd From: Johannes Berg To: Denis Kenzior Cc: "McGinn, Dan" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 09:01:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: (sfid-20180620_050502_120486_A63637FB) References: <1529065843.10037.22.camel@sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20180620_050502_120486_A63637FB) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 22:04 -0500, Denis Kenzior wrote: > > Right, but you’re much more aware of all the locking issues than I am. :-) > > Clearly this comes from cfg80211 without any locking other than rtnl, so > > you don't have preemption disabled. That's the minimum needed to get rid > > of the warning you found. > > In my defense, I did ask you whether there are any potential locking > issues in the RFC and you didn’t think there were any. Yep, I missed that too. More precisely, ISTR actually thinking about it and deciding it was fine, so ... my bad for sure. > I posted a fix for this. Could you please review? I think it's fine. I'll make a pass later today/this week and send patches upstream. johannes