On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 03:31:33PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > Btw. #2: David Miller gave this example of ASSERT_RTNL use:
> >
> > ASSERT_RTNL();
> > page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > But isn't there a debugging
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
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:26:01AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> Btw. #2: David Miller gave this example of ASSERT_RTNL use:
>
> ASSERT_RTNL();
> page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
>
> But isn't there a debugging duplication: it seems alloc_page() is used
> in so many places and this
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 09:26:32AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:06:41PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > It seemed to exist a few days ago:
> > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/12/4/473123
> >
> > Btw., I don't know which of the patches: Eric's or y
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 07:06:41PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
> It seemed to exist a few days ago:
> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/12/4/473123
>
> Btw., I don't know which of the patches: Eric's or yours will be chosen,
> but, IMHO, there is no reason to remove rtnl_tryl
Andrew Morton wrote, On 12/15/2007 11:48 AM:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me.
>> I was relying on
>>
>> http://kerneltrap.org/mai
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 09:44:29PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> Such situations (ASSERT_RTNL() in atomic context) have always
> been bugs though, and that continues to be true and I think
> the check should be added somehow.
OK once I've fixed the set_multicast path I'll do an audit of
the exist
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:10:16 +0800
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:48:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Now as a separate issue we (ie: you) need to work out what _other_ things
> > you want ASSERT_RTNL to check apart from "rtnl must be held".
>
> Since
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:44:18 -0800
> That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me.
I disagree, I have yet to see a legitimate case where doing a trylock
on a mutex lock didn't turn out to be a bug when performed in an
atomic context.
This is particul
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:48:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> When Eric said
>
> > Way way deep in mutex debugging on the slowpath there is a unreadable
> > and incomprehensible WARN_ON in muxtex_trylock that will trigger if
> > you have 10 tons of debugging turned on, and you are in,
> > int
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:10:21 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me.
>
> I was relying on
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/9/28/325129
>
> w
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:44:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> That sounds like a bug in mutex_trylock() to me.
I was relying on
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2007/9/28/325129
which seems to be a bogus claim now that I actually look at the
source code. So in that ca
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:18:27 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:11:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe that ASSERT_RTNL() presently warns when called from atomic
> > contexts. If it does then I missed it.
>
> It does when mutex debugging
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:11:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I don't believe that ASSERT_RTNL() presently warns when called from atomic
> contexts. If it does then I missed it.
It does when mutex debugging is enabled.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:15:14 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:37 +0800
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see how it could warn about that. Nor should it
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:02:36 -0800
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ASSERT_RTNL() uses mutex_trylock(), but it's better to use mutex_is_locked().
>
> Make that change, and remove rtnl_trylock() altogether.
>
> (not tested yet!)
>
> Cc: "David S. Miller"
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:30:37 +0800
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how it could warn about that. Nor should it - one might want
> > to check that rtnl_lock is held inside preempt_disable() or spin_lock or
> > I agree with this. IIRC I removed some ASSERT_RTNL()s in the wireless
> > code (or maybe it was only during testing patches) where we had a
> > function that required only the rtnl to be held but in certain contexts
> > was called from within an RCU section.
>
> Please point me to the actual
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> I agree with this. IIRC I removed some ASSERT_RTNL()s in the wireless
> code (or maybe it was only during testing patches) where we had a
> function that required only the rtnl to be held but in certain contexts
> was called from w
> I don't see how it could warn about that. Nor should it - one might want
> to check that rtnl_lock is held inside preempt_disable() or spin_lock or
> whatever.
I agree with this. IIRC I removed some ASSERT_RTNL()s in the wireless
code (or maybe it was only during testing patches) where we had
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:22:09AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I don't see how it could warn about that. Nor should it - one might want
> to check that rtnl_lock is held inside preempt_disable() or spin_lock or
> whatever.
>
> It might make sense to warn if ASSERT_RTNL is called in in_interru
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:10:44 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > diff -puN
> > drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c~net-use-mutex_is_locked-for-assert_rtnl
> > drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c
> > --- a/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c~net-use-mutex_is_locked-for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> diff -puN
> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c~net-use-mutex_is_locked-for-assert_rtnl
> drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c
> --- a/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c~net-use-mutex_is_locked-for-assert_rtnl
> +++ a/drivers/net/cxgb3/cxgb3_main.c
> @@ -2191,7 +2191,7 @@ static voi
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ASSERT_RTNL() uses mutex_trylock(), but it's better to use mutex_is_locked().
Make that change, and remove rtnl_trylock() altogether.
(not tested yet!)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
driver
24 matches
Mail list logo
