Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751186AbdFBBQi (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:16:38 -0400 Received: from m12-12.163.com ([220.181.12.12]:51227 "EHLO m12-12.163.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750892AbdFBBQh (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 21:16:37 -0400 Message-ID: <5930BCD6.9010306@163.com> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:18:14 +0800 From: Jia-Ju Bai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Corbet CC: Larry Finger , kvalo@codeaurora.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] b43legacy: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug in b43legacy_attr_interfmode_store References: <1496226547-5921-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@163.com> <85905124-7167-aeb0-8aff-4ceec09e9542@lwfinger.net> <592F6843.9000204@163.com> <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20170601101113.6dd30d6d@lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID: DMCowACnrBFLvDBZgRHbHg--.17326S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvdXoWruF1fuw43Ww13ZFyDCF13CFg_yoWkKFcE93 Wvv3s7Kr45XFW2yw4akr1agr43tFZ2vryUA3W8Xw17Z34FvFn5ZFn2kryftF4Sgan3J3Z8 Zr1UtwsxAwnI9jkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IUedwI3UUUUU== X-Originating-IP: [166.111.70.19] X-CM-SenderInfo: xedlyx5dmximizq6il2tof0z/1tbiYwvqelaDtKZSmgAAs3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1232 Lines: 29 On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800 > Jia-Ju Bai wrote: > >> I admit my patches are not well tested, and they may not well fix the bugs. >> I am looking forward to opinions and suggestions :) > May I politely suggest that sending out untested locking changes is a > dangerous thing to do? You really should not be changing the locking in a > piece of kernel code without understanding very well what the lock is > protecting and being able to say why your changes are safe. Without that, > the risk of introducing subtle bugs is very high. > > It looks like you have written a useful tool that could help us to make > the kernel more robust. If you are interested in my suggestion, I would > recommend that you post the sleep-in-atomic scenarios that you are > finding, but refrain from "fixing" them in any case where you cannot offer > a strong explanation of why your fix is correct. > > Thanks for working to find bugs in the kernel! > > jon Hi, Thanks for your good and helpful advice. I am sorry for my improper patches. I will only report bugs instead of sending improper patches when I have no good solution of fixing the bugs. Thanks, Jia-Ju Bai