On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:18:14 +0800 Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800 > > Jia-Ju Bai<baijiaju1990@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs. > >> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :) > > May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a > > dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a > > piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is > > protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that, > > the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high. > > > > It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make > > the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would > > recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are > > finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer > > a strong explanation of why your fix is correct. > > > > Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel! > > > > jon > Hi, > > Thanks for your good and helpful advice. I am sorry for my improper patches. > I will only report bugs instead of sending improper patches when I have > no good solution of fixing the bugs. Is somebody still working on these fixes? I think I found my old b43-legacy based 4306, so that I will be able to get these patches into properly tested shape. -- Michael
Attachment:
pgprdbDxAoTAT.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
