On Di, 2014-09-02 at 11:40 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Those ASSERT_RTNLs were misplaced and only caught the callers mostly > > from addrconf.c. I don't mind getting reports from stable kernel users > > and fixing those, too (or help fixing those). ASSERT_RTNL is not > > dangerous. > > > > We had a long history in not correctly using rtnl lock in ipv6/multicast > > code and those wrongfully placed ASSERT_RTNLs were my bad when I fixed > > the duplicate address detection handling. > > > > If enough multicast addresses are subscribed to an interface we might > > again get those splats because enabling promisc mode on an interface > > will also check for rtnl lock. > > > > Sure, I never doubt adding ASSERT_RTNL() is helpful, I just still think > this should be for net-next, or at least a separated patch. I don't want > my patch to be blamed in others' "Fixes:". :) Come on, that's why we have community review. Nobody blames anyone because of added regressions. It's more a fault of the community then, and it works out fairly good I think! Even others are keen on fixing your bugs sometimes. ;) If fixes tag is well researched, it won't point to the addition of ASSERT_RTNL() but your patch would help to discover a bug somewhere else in the stack. I think for this patch a fixes-tag is hard to find because it is hard to find because it dates back to the beginning of the git history IMHO. 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
