From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jia-Ju Bai Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:18:14 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_attr_interfmode_store In-Reply-To: <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> References: <1496226547-5921-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@163.com> <85905124-7167-aeb0-8aff-4ceec09e9542@lwfinger.net> <592F6843.9000204@163.com> <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> Message-ID: <5930BCD6.9010306@163.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Larry Finger , kvalo@codeaurora.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800 > Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > >> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs. >> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :) > May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a > dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a > piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is > protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that, > the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high. > > It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make > the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would > recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are > finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer > a strong explanation of why your fix is correct. > > Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel! > > jon Hi, Thanks for your good and helpful advice. I am sorry for my improper patches. I will only report bugs instead of sending improper patches when I have no good solution of fixing the bugs. Thanks, Jia-Ju Bai