[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080523195302.42846394@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:53:02 +0200
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, i2c@...sensors.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Push ioctl BKL down into the i2c code
Hi Stefan,
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:46:30 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Description of what the patch does and why it is needed, please. I
> > can't apply it without that. My first impression is a patch making the
> > code bigger and more complex with no obvious benefit ;)
>
> I wasn't asked, but:
>
> The patch description was factored out. ;-)
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/22/333
Hardly fits as a proper description for the git commit... But thanks
for the pointer.
> AFAIU it's a preparation for
>
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ ?? @@ struct file_operations {
> unsigned int (*poll) (struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *);
> - int (*ioctl) (struct inode *, struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long);
> long (*unlocked_ioctl) (struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long);
>
> Obvious benefits:
> - No new .ioctl()s.
I fail to see how this is related to the locking change.
> - Heads up for subsystem people: "Did you know you are taking the BKL?
> You probably don't need to, and you definitely don't want to."
Good one... I admit that I didn't know.
--
Jean Delvare
--
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