On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 06:23:55PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 08:17:13AM +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> > As I've written before I'm mainly concerned with things like
> > tcf_destroy_chain(), especially wrt. cls_u32, but I can be wrong with
> > this. So, if you don't have such concerns, let's forget it for now,
> > and after I look at this more maybe we'll get back to this discussion.
> 
> Well I can't vouch for every single qdisc in the tree.  However,
> what I can say is that as long as they respect the rules I outlined
> earlier with regards to holding the root qdisc lock when deleting
> or using children, then they'll work as expected.
> 
> You're definitely welcome to audit the qdiscs to make sure that
> they are obeying the rules.

That's my point - is there really a reason do this change without such
an audit if we are not forced at the moment? (I'd remind this way of
doing things was entirely legal according to comments.) I doubt, I'm
the right person for auditing this but as I said I'll have a look,
especially when there will be lack of those fascinating oopses and
warnings around.

Cheers,
Jarek P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html