Re: [PATCH] rtnl: Simplify ASSERT_RTNL

Herbert Xu
2007-09-30T00:28:39Z

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 11:18:18AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> Regardless of the correctness of where we have ASSERT_RTNL.
> I think not actually taking the mutex on the assertion failure path
> (just so we can release it), is still a good deal regardless.

Provided that you add a might_sleep call in there so that if
somebody does this under locks it'll complain then I agree.

Checking RTNL under spin locks is almost certainly the sign
of a bug.

Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt