From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: mutex WARNING while running ip from iproute2 package Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:25:43 +0200 Message-ID: <480FFDB7.8050706@trash.net> References: <200804201757.09938.denys@visp.net.lb> <20080423.194125.202757521.davem@davemloft.net> <480FFA8E.1040407@trash.net> <20080423.202050.255399231.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: denys@visp.net.lb, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:55309 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753420AbYDXDZj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:25:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080423.202050.255399231.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:12:14 +0200 > >> Sure. This seems to be the bogus ASSERT_RTNL warning caused >> by mutex_trylock() while holding a spinlock. The warning >> itself is harmless, since we're already holding the RTNL, >> mutex_trylock won't succeed. > > I'm sorry, I had forgotten about this. :-/ > >> Herbert suggested to store address updates in atomic context >> on a temporary list and do the actual update in process >> context. This seems like a good idea to simplify the address >> list locking, unfortunately I didn't manage to take care of >> this yet. An alternative fix to silent the bogus warning would >> be to use mutex_is_locked in ASSERT_RTNL, but Herbert didn't >> like that idea. > > I think we need something like the latter in any event. I'll cook up a patch for this.