On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:26:32AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: ... > > I retract what I've said in this thread and continue to oppose > > this change without a might_sleep. ... > So, I think using might_sleep() explicitly would be much more > readable or, otherwise, Patrick's proposal with adding > ASSERT_RTNL_ATOMIC would implicitly signal the real meaning of the > other one.
OOPS! I've looped again! Of course, ASSERT_RTNL with might_sleep() would be explicit enough by itself (if we don't believe atomicity is debugged enough). So, this atomic version could be usable for other reasons. Jarek P. -- 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
