[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463AA2F5.7030307@microgate.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 21:05:25 -0600
From: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty add compat_ioctl
Paul Fulghum wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> - In your driver you don't get the big kernel lock in the
>> compat_ioctl function. I assume that this is correct for
>> the particular driver, but it may be nice if you could
>> consequently also add an unlocked_ioctl function that can
>> be used without the BKL for native ioctls. It would be good
>> to hear an opinon on this from someone who has an insight
>> in tty locking issues though, so I'm Cc:ing some people
>> who have touched that recently.
>
> I don't count on higher level locking for
> synchronization issues specific to the driver.
>
> I thought the current compat_ioctl() was already
> meant to *not* have the BKL just like unlocked_ioctl.
> My thought was that any driver getting a recent update
> like compat_ioctl() would need to be reviewed for BKL
> safety and take the lock manually if necessary.
Nevermind. I misread what you wrote (I'm tired).
Yes, adding an unlocked_ioctl() makes sense.
--
Paul
-
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