On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 09:19 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote: > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held() && !lockdep_rtnl_is_held()); > > Thought about something like this after sending the email. So there > are two call sites. One for scheduled scan results notification and > one in scheduled scan stop scenario. So for the latter it is not > needed to use the rcu_read_lock() as it should have RTNL lock hence > the two checks above?
Right. The latter can't even really use rcu_read_lock() since it also wants to modify the list, and that's not sufficient protection for modifying. Thanks! johannes
