[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> This is all certainly doable, but it leaves me with one concern: there
> will be no signal to external module maintainers that the change needs
> to be made. So, beyond doubt, quite a few of them will just continue to
> be shipped unfixed - and they will still run. If any of them actually
> *need* the BKL, something awful may happen to somebody someday.

External modules have bugs because interfaces change. Film at 11.

It's true, but it definitely shouldn't keep us from just doing it.
Especially since well-maintained external modules (ie the authors follow
big discussions like this) can just take the kernel lock regardless of
kernel version, since it won't even be broken with old kernels.

Of course, well-maintained kernel modules wouldn't depend on the BKL in
the first place. Oh, well.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-15 00:19    [W:0.168 / U:5.104 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site