Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 May 2004 03:54:00 +0100 | From | viro@parcelfa ... | Subject | Re: Unserializing ioctl() system calls |
| |
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 10:46:45PM -0400, Spinka, Kristofer wrote: > I noticed that even in the 2.6.6 code, callers to ioctl > system call (sys_ioctl in fs/ioctl.c) are serialized with > {lock,unlock}_kernel(). > > I realize that many kernel modules, and POSIX for that > matter, may not be ready to make this more concurrent. > > I propose adding a flag to indicate that the underlying > module would like to support its own concurrency > management, and thus we avoid grabbing the BKL around the > f_op->ioctl call. > > The default behavior would adhere to existing standards, > and if the flag is present (in the underlying module), we > let the module (or modules) handle it. > > Reasonable?
No. Flags on drivers are never a good idea. What's more, if somebody wants that shit parallelized they can always drop BKL upon entry and reacquire on exit from their ->ioctl(). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |