On Tuesday 30 October 2007 02:56:51 David Ellingsworth wrote:
> If that is the case, then a proper fix would be to use two locks to protect
> access to the status. One for allowing read access when no one is writing,
> and another for allowing exclusive write access. In such a configuration you
Forgot to send to list
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] b43: Fix rfkill callback deadlock
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:56:51 -0400
>
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
On Monday 29 October 2007 01:06:51 David Ellingsworth wrote:
> > - mutex_lock(&wl->mutex);
> > + /* When RFKILL is registered, it will call back into this callback.
> > + * wl->mutex will already be locked when this happens.
> > + * So first trylock. On contention check if we are in initialization.
Sorry, hopefully its readable this time.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PATCH] b43: Fix rfkill callback deadlock
> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:27:10 +0100
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wl->mutex
On Sunday 28 October 2007 23:37:10 David Ellingsworth wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PATCH] b43: Fix
> > rfkill callback deadlock> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:27:10 +0100> CC: [EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]; bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de;
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PATCH] b43: Fix
> rfkill callback deadlock> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:27:10 +0100> CC: [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]; bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de; [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wl->mutex
> might already be locked on
wl->mutex might already be locked on initialization.
Signed-off-by: Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/rfkill.c
===
--- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/b43/rfkill.c 2007-10-27
13:2
