On 04-12-2007 23:26, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> But, IMHO, blowing ASSERT_RTNL up in a few places shouldn't be much
> worse. After all, how long such a debugging code should be kept. It
> seems, at least sometimes we should be a bit more confident of how
> it's called.
I see this won't be done t
Joonwoo Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> dev_set_rx_mode calls __dev_set_rx_mode with softirq disabled (by
> netif_tx_lock_bh)
> therefore __dev_set_promiscuity can be called with softirq disabled.
> It will cause in_interrupt() to return true and ASSERT_RTNL warning.
> Is there a good solu
Joonwoo Park wrote, On 12/04/2007 10:48 AM:
> Hi,
> dev_set_rx_mode calls __dev_set_rx_mode with softirq disabled (by
> netif_tx_lock_bh)
> therefore __dev_set_promiscuity can be called with softirq disabled.
> It will cause in_interrupt() to return true and ASSERT_RTNL warning.
> Is there a good
