[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100330065046.GA22419@nowhere>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:50:48 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
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 1/6] procfs: Kill BKL in llseek on proc base
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 09:40:24AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> > --- a/fs/proc/base.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/base.c
> > @@ -728,6 +728,7 @@ out_no_task:
> >
> > static const struct file_operations proc_info_file_operations = {
> > .read = proc_info_read,
> > + .llseek = generic_file_llseek,
>
> There is no warning for default default_llseek case.
> This should be done same way as proc ioctls.
I don't think we should. We have overriden the llseek for
the procfs users located in the proc core (just fs/proc)
but we haven't touched all of the external users, and since
there are hundreds of them, I guess a lot don't implement
llseek.
We would need to first override those that are visible upstream
and warn for the further ones after this step only.
--
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