On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 16:46 +0200, Arend Van Spriel wrote:

On 28-3-2017 16:25, Johannes Berg wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

-	if (rdev->ops->resume) {
-		rtnl_lock();
-		if (rdev->wiphy.registered)
-			ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
-		rtnl_unlock();
-	}
+	rtnl_lock();
+	if (rdev->wiphy.registered && rdev->ops->resume)
+		ret = rdev_resume(rdev);
+	rtnl_unlock();

Hmm? Commit message seems ... old perhaps?

Hmmm, why? Before the patch rdev->ops was accessed before
checking
rdev->wiphy.registered. When rdev->wiphy.registers is false we no
longer access rdev->ops after the patch. So a driver doing a
wiphy_unregister() can safely kfree() the callback struct after
it.

Oh, right. Looks like I misinterpreted things.

So apparently my choice of words was poor. Do you want me to
rephrase?

Nah, don't worry. When I apply it I'll re-read and see if I just
confused myself or if it makes sense to reword a bit.

johannes