[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091118175540.GR21750@bolzano.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:55:40 +0100
From: Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jkacur@...hat.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] BKL: Remove BKL from default_llseek()
On Wed, Nov 18, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 18. November 2009 18:27:30 schrieb Jamie Lokier:
> > > No. Your logic is flawed
> > >
> > > The BKL is protected something here - it protects the change of offset
> > > with respect to other BKL users within drivers. The question is what if
> > > anything in any other driver code depends upon the BKL and uses it to
> > > protect f_pos. Probably very little if anything but a grep for f_pos
> > > through the drivers might not be a bad idea before assuming this. Very
> > > few touch f_pos except in their own llseek method.
> >
> > Of course, drivers shouldn't be using f_pos outside their llseek
> > method, as they should all behave the same with pread/pwrite as with
> > llseek+read/write.
>
> Might not a driver update f_pos after read/write?
Actually the VFS is doing that for you in read/write syscall. So anything you
change in your driver gets corrected (or overwritten anyway).
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
--
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