From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754909AbaIBSLb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:11:31 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:51393 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750954AbaIBSL3 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:11:29 -0400
Message-ID: <1409681487.26422.1.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>
Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>,
        Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, trinity@vger.kernel.org,
        Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:11:27 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAHA+R7Mwy1SCpEUgGf9BdLEro6N-3t89KU=xL0iuzgOppXELrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+ydwtoDwQVg_BWrxxdpUyJ7Up60GtxTCLYe_5vFdV2td_kGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <CAHA+R7MZCDGRhSf=UuVCGQvNo03wVziZQB_X30rwNf6hmHipQA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20140829195339.GA9780@kria> <1409363489.2980.17.camel@localhost>
	 <CAHA+R7ODa+LrdwSrS7HcBfwwq8_fpj-Ld0OCDtcOqkpCdZCvxg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1409680684.972417.162793869.03CF8A61@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	 <CAHA+R7Mwy1SCpEUgGf9BdLEro6N-3t89KU=xL0iuzgOppXELrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.