On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:15:14 -0800 (PST) David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. I don't believe that ASSERT_RTNL() presently warns when called from atomic contexts. If it does then I missed it. -- 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
