Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:41:00 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] procfs: Kill the bkl in ioctl

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:21:23PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 19:22:11 Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:33:40AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > I believe we can actually remove ioctl from file_operations. The patch I did
> > > to convert all users to ".unlocked_ioctl = default_ioctl," should really catch
> > > all cases, and I think we can enforce this by renaming fops->ioctl to locked_ioctl
> > > or old_ioctl to make sure we didn't miss any, and then mandate that this one
> > > is only used when unlocked_ioctl is set to default_ioctl.
> > 
> > I just looked at the patch in question and noted that the changelog
> > is pretty high, but how could it be else.
> > Actually it's not that large, but highly spread:
> <snip>
> >  157 files changed, 372 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > I wonder if we should actually just turn all these into unlocked_ioctl
> > directly. And then bring a warn on ioctl, and finally schedule the removal
> > of this callback.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I don't think the warning helps all that much, at least not across an
> entire release. We could leave it in for the merge window and fix all
> users for -rc1, then submit a patch that kills everything that came
> in during the merge window and remove it completely in -rc2.
> 
> Getting rid of ioctl completely is a lot of work though, covering the
> entire lot of ~150 device drivers. I think the patch as is (or the
> variant renaming .ioctl to .locked_ioctl) is far less work and has
> less potential of introducing regressions.
> 
> > You plan looks good but I fear this actually carries the problem forward
> > in that we won't be able to remove .ioctl after that.
> > 
> > I can handle that if you agree.
> 
> I don't think we really need to get rid of it this soon in the obsolete
> drivers, pushing down the BKL into an unlocked_ioctl function only slightly
> shifts the problem around, since the driver still depends on the BKL then
> and gets disabled if you build with CONFIG_BKL=n.


Hmm, yeah you're right actually. Since we have this CONFIG_BKL thing
plus a future check to prevent from people implementing new ioctl
(checking ioctl without default_ioctl), it's actually better than
a big pushdown as it's less invasive.



> In the meantime, we can move the declaration of the .locked_ioctl callback
> into an #ifdef CONFIG_BKL, to make sure nobody builds a driver with an
> ioctl function that does not get called.


Ok, now how to get this all merged? A single monolithic patch is probably
not appropriate.

The simplest is to have a single branch with the default_ioctl implemented,
and then attributed to drivers in a set cut by subsystems/drivers. And
push the whole for the next -rc1.

The other solution is to push default_ioctl for this release and get
the driver changes to each concerned tree. That said, I suspect a good
part of them are unmaintained, hence the other solution looks better
to me.


Hmm?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists