> > I agree with this. IIRC I removed some ASSERT_RTNL()s in the wireless > > code (or maybe it was only during testing patches) where we had a > > function that required only the rtnl to be held but in certain contexts > > was called from within an RCU section. > > Please point me to the actual code so I can see if this is legit > or not.
I don't think I have that case any more since now my interface list is either protected by RCU or the rtnl. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
