Hi Cong, On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need > > to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is > > possible. RCU locked version is just easier composeable, so I wouldn't > > touch that if needed in future, just also take rcu lock as before. > > There is no point to keep RCU read lock if we have rtnl lock, > I don't know why you don't want to change dev_get_by_flags(), > it is pretty easy to do since it only has one caller. I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when additional users of dev_get_by_flags_rcu were removed. > Even if you really need RCU in future, you are always welcome > to bring it back when you do, sorry we should never be blocked by > code NOT merged yet. > > > > > Also we should move ASSERT_RTNL checks from addrconf_join_solict to > > ipv6_dev_mc_inc/dec. > > > > Make it another patch. It is just one logical change, moving ASSERT_RTNLs to places where they better catch invalid callstacks. Bye, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
