[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080110192950.GG747@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:29:50 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] Switch ioctl functions of drivers/scsi/sg.c to unlocked_ioctl
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:07:48PM +0100, Andre Noll wrote:
> On 19:59, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > But perhaps for such a long ioctl handler it would be better to move
> > the lock/unlock_kernel()s into the individual case ...: statements;
> > then it could be eliminated step by step.
>
> Sure, I can do that if James likes the idea. Since not all case
> statements need the BKL, we could add it only to those for which it
> isn't clear that it is unnecessary.
>
> And this would actually improve something.
I still think it would be a good strategy to first add it to all
(in a essentially nop semantics patch) and then later eliminate
it from the cases that obviously don't need it.
But yes eliminating it from all is the long term goal.
-Andi
--
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