Herbert Xu wrote:
> Doing the wait when IFF_RUNNING is off isn't necessary though.  If
> IFF_RUNNING isn't set, then either the device has never been activated
> or we've already carried out those waits the last time we were in
> dev_deactivate.

Right. But it still depends on what the synchronization is meant to
protect us from. It isn't clear to me, whether it's
  o packets in flight
  o qdisc references
  o device references
so yes, I tried to play it safe.

Anyway, given the comments from Thomas, I've pulled out the IFF_RUNNING
stuff. We can add this later, when the other uses have been sorted out.

> I understand your preference for defensive programming.  However, in
> cases like this it's better to do the obvious thing because:
> 
> 1) We don't cover up bugs that may come back to bite us elsewhere.
> 2) We don't give people misconceptions.  If they're unfamiliar with
> the system they may infer things from this code that aren't necessarily
> the case.

I totally agree with this.

-Tommy