Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

2007-02-18 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:11:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: .. > > You are also changing the semantics of ASSERT_RTNL (assert *this thread* > > has rtnl, from the > > old behaviour: assert *some thread* has rtnl). It may be bette

Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

2007-02-18 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Jarek Poplawski wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > > >>Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:40:32 -0800 > >>>Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > Maybe

Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

2007-02-18 Thread Ben Greear
Jarek Poplawski wrote: On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: Stephen Hemminger wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:40:32 -0800 Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe there should be something like an ASSERT_NOT_RTNL() in the flush_scheduled_work() method? I

[PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

2007-02-18 Thread Jarek Poplawski
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:04:02AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:40:32 -0800 > >Ben Greear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Maybe there should be something like an ASSERT_NOT_RTNL() in the > >>flush_scheduled_work() > >>method? If it's performance