From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtnl: Simplify ASSERT_RTNL Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:15:07 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20071011082845.GA16527@gondor.apana.org.au> <20071011.173046.66166737.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:34469 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757548AbXJLDQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:16:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071011.173046.66166737.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:30:46 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David, all. My apologies. I'm tired and I don't have the energy to grok yet another part of the kernel right now. So I can not productively participate in this discussion. I do agree that the locking below dev_unicast_add() that was exposed by the macvlan driver is unmaintainable even if it is currently correct. I don't see any fundamental problems with adding a might_sleep(), ASSERT_RTNL. I just don't have the energy to audit everything I feel I would have to audit to be comfortable taking responsibility for adding the might_sleep() or fixing the locking in dev_unicast_add() (which seems more important). So again my apologies. This is all beyond what I can deal with at the moment. Eric