Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:40:47 +0100

On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 08:11:59AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 10:27:19PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
..
> > You are also changing the semantics of ASSERT_RTNL (assert *this thread* 
> > has rtnl, from the
> > old behaviour:  assert *some thread* has rtnl).  It may be better this
> > way, but it could break code that assumes the old behaviour.

If any code could assume the old behaviour it's simply
a bug (eg. doing ASSERT_RTNL two times one after
another could give different results). And it's
logically wrong to: the same process is trying to
acquire the same lock second time (pseudo recursively:
it makes difficult lock verifying eg. by lockdep). 

Jarek P.