On 8/5/24 17:40, Rory Little wrote: > This operation requires some blocking calls, which causes issues when > attempting to guard this iteration's critical section with an RCU lock. > Instead, we will take advantage of the held wiphy mutex to protect this > operation. > > Signed-off-by: Rory Little <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c > index 7579a1cd7d15..a1a13b9ad465 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/mac.c > @@ -9502,9 +9502,9 @@ static int ath10k_mac_op_set_bitrate_mask(struct > ieee80211_hw *hw, > ar->normal_mode_fw.fw_file.fw_features); > if (allow_pfr) { > mutex_lock(&ar->conf_mutex); > - ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic(ar->hw, > - > ath10k_mac_clr_bitrate_mask_iter, > - arvif); > + ieee80211_iterate_stations_mtx(ar->hw, > + ath10k_mac_clr_bitrate_mask_iter, > + arvif); > mutex_unlock(&ar->conf_mutex); > } >
+ ath10k list This was deferred back when Kalle was maintainer, and I'm now revisiting the backlog. Is this still needed? And if so, is there a reason why the other instance of ieee80211_iterate_stations_atomic() (which sets the mask) does not need to be modified? /jeff
