On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. `git grep` should show you we only have one caller. Apparently we don't care about any out-of-tree module. > >> 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. > Conflicts with what you claimed above. :) -- 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
