[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100330192110.GI5078@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:21:14 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] procfs: Push down the bkl from ioctl
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:54:11PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 March 2010 20:27:12 Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:37:27AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 30 March 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Push down the bkl from procfs's ioctl main handler to its users.
> > > > Only three procfs users implement an ioctl (non unlocked) handler.
> > > > Turn them into unlocked_ioctl and push down the Devil inside.
> > >
> > > Looks good to me. I would have used a single unlock and return statement
> > > in i8k_ioctl and isdn_divert_ioctl, with goto instead of adding an
> > > unlock to each return, but it doesn't matter much.
> >
> >
> > I did that first, but actually that didn't make much difference:
> >
> > ret = foo; unlock_kernel()
> > goto end; VS return foo;
>
> Yes, the amount of code needed is comparable, but it is much easier
> to validate that you did not miss an unlock when you know that there
> is a single return statement in the function. It also helps the next
> person that may want to replace the BKL with a different lock.
Ah you're right!
--
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