From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] net: use mutex_is_locked() for ASSERT_RTNL() Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:44:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20071217074411.GB1654@ff.dom.local> References: <20071214083037.GA15602@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071214.111514.03773174.davem@davemloft.net> <20071214151136.ae0f969b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071215041827.GC25324@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071214214418.0ecd5e67.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071215061021.GA26247@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071215024810.20b8a5ae.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47656931.1040309@gmail.com> <20071217012632.GA8475@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071217072601.GA1654@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185]:29675 "EHLO fk-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754841AbXLQHi6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:38:58 -0500 Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id z23so1315482fkz.5 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:38:57 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071217072601.GA1654@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:26:32AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: ... > > I retract what I've said in this thread and continue to oppose > > this change without a might_sleep. ... > So, I think using might_sleep() explicitly would be much more > readable or, otherwise, Patrick's proposal with adding > ASSERT_RTNL_ATOMIC would implicitly signal the real meaning of the > other one. OOPS! I've looped again! Of course, ASSERT_RTNL with might_sleep() would be explicit enough by itself (if we don't believe atomicity is debugged enough). So, this atomic version could be usable for other reasons. Jarek P.