> I don't see how it could warn about that. Nor should it - one might want > to check that rtnl_lock is held inside preempt_disable() or spin_lock or > whatever.
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. johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
