[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080108185255.GA4627@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 21:52:56 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:40:15PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors
> could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl.
>
> Most ioctl handlers still running implicitely under the big kernel
> lock (BKL). But long term Linux is trying to get away from that. There is a new
> ->unlocked_ioctl entry point that allows ioctls without BKL, but the code
> needs to be explicitely converted to use this.
>
> The first step of getting rid of the BKL is typically to make it visible
> in the source. Once it is visible people will have incentive to eliminate it.
> That is how the BKL conversion project for Linux long ago started too.
> On 2.0 all system calls were still implicitely BKL and in 2.1 the
> lock/unlock_kernel()s were moved into the various syscall functions and then
> step by step eliminated.
>
> And now it's time to do the same for all the ioctls too.
>
> So my proposal is to convert the ->ioctl handlers all over the tree
> to ->unlocked_ioctl with explicit lock_kernel()/unlock_kernel.
Thanks, Andi! I think it'd very useful change.
--
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