On 04-12-2007 23:26, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> But, IMHO, blowing ASSERT_RTNL up in a few places shouldn't be much
> worse. After all, how long such a debugging code should be kept. It
> seems, at least sometimes we should be a bit more confident of how
> it's called.
I see this won't be done this way, but, if it were, then there is no
reason to remove the second: documenting feature of ASSERT_RTNL, so
some comment about locking should be added.
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
