Andrew Morton wrote, On 12/15/2007 11:48 AM: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >>> That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me. >> I was relying on >> >> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/9/28/325129 >> >> which seems to be a bogus claim now that I actually look at the >> source code. So in that case I'm OK with your patch as long as >> it warns about hard IRQ usage. > > When Eric said > >> Way way deep in mutex debugging on the slowpath there is a unreadable >> and incomprehensible WARN_ON in muxtex_trylock that will trigger if >> you have 10 tons of debugging turned on, and you are in, >> interrupt context, and you manage to hit the slow path. I think that >> is a pretty unlikely scenario. > > I think he's still right. That's if the warning which he managed to find > even still exists.
It seemed to exist a few days ago: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/12/4/473123 Btw., I don't know which of the patches: Eric's or yours will be chosen, but, IMHO, there is no reason to remove rtnl_trylock(), which can be still useful, just like mutex_trylock() is. Regards, Jarek P. -- 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
