[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1237929888.3308.31.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:24:48 +0000
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: stoyboyker@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
osst@...de.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] [scsi] changed ioctls to unlocked
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:12 -0500, stoyboyker@...il.com wrote:
> From: Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@...il.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Stoyan Gaydarov <stoyboyker@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/scsi/osst.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/osst.c b/drivers/scsi/osst.c
> index 0ea78d9..80e7e98 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/osst.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/osst.c
> @@ -4856,9 +4856,10 @@ static int os_scsi_tape_close(struct inode * inode, struct file * filp)
>
>
> /* The ioctl command */
> -static int osst_ioctl(struct inode * inode,struct file * file,
> - unsigned int cmd_in, unsigned long arg)
> +static long osst_ioctl(struct file * file, unsigned int cmd_in,
> + unsigned long arg)
> {
> + lock_kernel();
What necessitates the kernel locking? When st was audited, it didn't
need it; since osst is in many ways a copy of st, I'm surprised it does.
James
--
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