lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:1.445 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site