[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080625105717.2d9f30b2@i1501.lan.towertech.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:57:17 +0200
From: Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@...ertech.it>
To: rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Cc: david-b@...bell.net, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [rtc-linux] [PATCH] rtc: remove BKL for ioctl()
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:55:42 -0700
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> Remove implicit use of BKL in ioctl() from the RTC framework.
>
> Instead, the rtc->ops_lock is used. That's the same lock that already
> protects the RTC operations when they're issued through the exported
> rtc_*() calls in drivers/rtc/interface.c ... making this a bugfix, not
> just a cleanup, since both ioctl calls and set_alarm() need to update
> IRQ enable flags and that implies a common lock (which RTC drivers as
> a rule do not provide on their own).
>
> A new comment at the declaration of "struct rtc_class_ops" summarizes
> current locking rules. It's not clear to me that the exceptions listed
> there should exist ... if not, those are pre-existing problems which can
> be fixed in a patch that doesn't relate to BKL removal.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Acked-by: Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
--
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