![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
"Spinka, Kristofer" <kspinka@style.net> writes:
> 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.
POSIX doesn't care how the kernel implements locking.
> 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.
Better would be probably a unlocked_ioctl() entry point in f_op. Should
be pretty easy to implement.
There is also the additional issue that on 64bit systems with 32bit
userland the ioctl emulation currently relies on the BKL.
-Andi
-
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 13:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||