[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091011210809.GC5486@nowhere>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:08:10 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Sanders <vince@...tec.co.uk>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 11/28] nvram: Drop the bkl from nvram_llseek()
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:31:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 10 October 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > There is nothing to protect inside nvram_llseek(), the file
> > offset doesn't need to be protected and nvram_len is only
> > initialized from an __init path.
> >
> > It's safe to remove the big kernel lock there.
> >
>
> The generic_nvram driver still uses ->ioctl instead of ->unlocked_ioctl.
> I guess it would be helpful to change that in the same series, so we
> don't get the BKL back as soon as someone does a pushdown into the
> remaining ioctl functions.
>
> Arnd <><
Right!
I'll add that in a second patch.
I've completely forgotten this ioctl/unlocked_ioctl thing.
--
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