On 09/02/2014 02:15 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa >> >>>> 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. >> >> Point is : you did not check if some stable versions had more callers. >> >> Its very nice you checked current version, but it is not enough for a >> stable candidate. > > That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks > me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work. > > (I am not saying I don't want to help him, I just want to point out the fact. > I am very pleased to help David for stable backports as long as he asks) Instead of helping after the fact, why not arrange the patches so that it's not such a big issue. Leave the _rcu variant alone. Add an _rtnl variant of the function and use that in the patch. Have a follow-on patch that removes the _rcu variant all by itself. This way backports become easier, and if anyone wants the _rcu variant back, all they have to do is revert a very simple commit. -vlad -- 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
