Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well thanks to that warning we're on our way of improving the > code that triggered it in such a way that this warning will soon > go silent. > > That's precisely the reason why I object to having this warning > removed. Now you have a good point that this warning doesn't > trigger all the time. The fix to that is to *make* it trigger > always, not removing it.
I'm almost convinced but. Where people deliberately use convoluted locking is where we most need things like ASSERT_RTNL. Having ASSERT_RTNL warn if you were sleeping does not seem intuitive from the name. This instance of convoluted locking seems like a complete one off to me, and if it will warn about other constructs currently in the kernel it seems wrong. Frankly I don't feel comfortable adding the check because I can't defend the presence of might_sleep() in ASSERT_RTNL. If I can't understand a change well enough to defend it I will not take responsibility for it, and I will not add my Signed-off-by to it. The patch I wrote was trivial a trivial optimization and obviously correct. Adding the might_sleep() and the patch becomes the start of a crusade for better code that I don't believe in. So I would rather forget this patch then make that one line addition. Thanks, Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
