![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > There's also every char device open() method - a rather long list in its > own right. I'd be surprised if one in ten of them really needs it, but > one has to look... I don't think there are *that* many. I found only 83 instances of "register_chrdev()" in the kernel, so the open methods should be pretty limited. Of course, some open methods call other sub-registrations, but you'd start off by moving the lock_kernel() down just *one* stage. So it literally should be: - remove one lock_kernel/unlock_kernel pair in fs/char_dev.c - add max 83 pairs in the places that register those things - external modules will need to add it themselves some day. > 1: We could add an unlocked_open() to the file_operations structure; > drivers could be converted over as they are verified not to need the > BKL on open. Disadvantages are that it grows this structure for a > relatively rare case - most open() calls already don't need the BKL. > But it's a relatively easy path without flag days. I really don't think it's worth the pain. See above. The numbers aren't that huge, and external modules simply aren't a pressing enough issue. Linus -- 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: 2008-05-15 00:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||