[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF42A5E.6060503@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:13:50 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Autofs <autofs@...ux.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] autofs: Pushdown the bkl from ioctl
On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/19/2010 10:24 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> * generate kernel reactions
>>> */
>>> -static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>>> +static int autofs_root_ioctl_unlocked(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>>> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> {
>>> struct autofs_sb_info *sbi = autofs_sbi(inode->i_sb);
>>> @@ -579,3 +579,16 @@ static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>>> return -ENOSYS;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>>> + unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> +{
>>
>> The choice of naming here seems reverse in my opinion.
>
>
> Oh, why?
>
> The function that holds the bkl calls its unlocked version.
>
But it's not ... it is locked at that point. It's not lock*ing*, but it
is not *unlocked*, either. Furthermore, it is directly contradicting
the naming scheme of the ops structure.
-hpa
--
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