On 17 June 2016 at 07:13, Kalle Valo <kv...@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 16 June 2016 at 17:10, Kalle Valo <kv...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> Removing P2P interface is handled by sending a proper request to the >>>> firmware. On success firmware triggers an event and driver's handler >>>> removes a matching interface. >>>> >>>> However on event timeout we remove interface directly from the cfg80211 >>>> callback. Current code doesn't handle this case correctly as it always >>>> assumes rtnl to be unlocked. >>>> >>>> Fix it by adding an extra rtnl_locked parameter to functions and calling >>>> unregister_netdevice when needed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zaj...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Failed to apply, please rebase: >>> >>> Applying: brcmfmac: fix lockup when removing P2P interface after event >>> timeout >>> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree... >>> Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge... >>> Auto-merging drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/p2p.c >>> Auto-merging drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.h >>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in >>> drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.h >>> Auto-merging drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/core.c >>> Auto-merging drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmfmac/cfg80211.c >>> Failed to merge in the changes. >>> Patch failed at 0001 brcmfmac: fix lockup when removing P2P interface after >>> event timeout >> >> What tree did you try it on? >> >> I just went into a dir where I have cloned: >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kvalo/wireless-drivers.git >> >> My HEAD commit is: >> 034fdd4 Merge ath-current from ath.git >> >> And I can apply this patch cleanly doing: >> curl https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9138925/mbox/ | git am > > I was trying to apply this to wireless-drivers-next. I didn't get a > confirmation from Arend and I didn't consider the fix important enough > for 4.7. But of course I can reconsider if needed.
I think I agree it won't hurt to get it into -next. Noone earlier reported this bug and it seems to be there for a long time. Also applying it to -next will allow avoiding merge conflicts and immediate development work on -next. I'll resend this patch rebased on -next soon. -- Rafał
