Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | | Date | Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:54:20 +0200 (CEST) | | From | John Kacur <> | | Subject | [PATCH RFC] raw: Remove the BKL from raw_open |
| |
I made this RFC in case folks with more experience spot something I've missed, although this looks pretty safe to me.
From c1700fbd613ac94d95406eb83ada3d15e511e98c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:45:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] raw: Remove the BKL from raw_open
The BKL was pushed into raw_open with commit c0bed680f0ca603864375ed5f9fed4296a53aa62
Jonathan's comments were " Put explicit lock_kernel() calls into raw_open(), even though the existing locking looks adequate."
I have to agree, the raw_mutex should provide all the protection needed here.
Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> --- drivers/char/raw.c | 4 ---- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/char/raw.c b/drivers/char/raw.c index 64acd05..d9cfad1 100644 --- a/drivers/char/raw.c +++ b/drivers/char/raw.c @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ #include <linux/cdev.h> #include <linux/device.h> #include <linux/mutex.h> -#include <linux/smp_lock.h> #include <asm/uaccess.h> @@ -54,7 +53,6 @@ static int raw_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) return 0; } - lock_kernel(); mutex_lock(&raw_mutex); /* @@ -81,7 +79,6 @@ static int raw_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp) bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping; filp->private_data = bdev; mutex_unlock(&raw_mutex); - unlock_kernel(); return 0; out2: @@ -90,7 +87,6 @@ out1: blkdev_put(bdev, filp->f_mode); out: mutex_unlock(&raw_mutex); - unlock_kernel(); return err; } -- 1.6.0.6
|  |