On 23-5-2017 9:22, Johannes Berg wrote: > 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.
Hence the name ;-) Regards, Arend
