On 4/25/2017 9:49 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
if (schedule_destroy_work) {
- struct cfg80211_iface_destroy *destroy;
+ struct cfg80211_nlport_release *destroy;
destroy = kzalloc(sizeof(*destroy),
GFP_ATOMIC);
I was never really happy with this allocation and really want to get
rid of it ...
Agree. I don't like the allocation overhead either for deferred
processing in another context.
+ if (schedule_sched_stop_work) {
+ struct cfg80211_nlport_release *destroy;
+
+ destroy = kzalloc(sizeof(*destroy),
GFP_ATOMIC);
+ if (destroy) {
+ destroy->nlportid = notify->portid;
+ spin_lock(&rdev-
sched_stop_list_lock);
+ list_add(&destroy->list, &rdev-
sched_stop_list);
+ spin_unlock(&rdev-
sched_stop_list_lock);
+ schedule_work(&rdev-
sched_scan_stop_wk);
+ }
+ }
Can't we set some kind of flag in the struct
cfg80211_sched_scan_request and iterate through them later again,
checking which need to be destroyed?
Sure. In the worker we are already iterating so I guess we could. The
number of internal fields in struct cfg80211_sched_scan_request with one
of them being the list_head. Thinking about hiding those from the
drivers. Is it worth it?
Regards,
Arend
