Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
From: Vlad Yasevich
Date: Tue Sep 02 2014 - 15:08:29 EST
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/