On Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:18:14 +0800
Jia-Ju Bai [off-list ref] wrote:

On 06/02/2017 12:11 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:05:07 +0800
Jia-Ju Bai[off-list ref]  wrote:
 

quoted

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.

Is somebody still working on these fixes?
I think I found my old b43-legacy based 4306, so that I will
be able to get these patches into properly tested shape.

-- 
Michael