From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:37 +0800

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> > 
> > It might make sense to warn if ASSERT_RTNL is called in in_interrupt()
> > contexts though.
> 
> Well the paths where ASSERT_RTNL is used should never be in an
> atomic context.  In the past it has been quite useful in pointing
> out bogus locking practices.
> 
> There is currently one path where it's known to warn because of
> this and it (promiscuous mode) is on my todo list.
> 
> Oh and it only warns when you have mutex debugging enabled.

Right, this change is just totally bogus.

I'm all for using existing facilities to replace hand-crafted copies,
but this case is removing useful debugging functionality so it's
wrong.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to