lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/11] sysctl: Separate the binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
    From
    Date
    Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:

    > On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    >> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> writes:
    >>
    >> > Am Freitag 06 November 2009 01:41:44 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
    >> >> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
    >> >>
    >> >> In preparation for more invasive cleanups separate the core
    >> >> binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
    >> >>
    >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
    >> >
    >> > Hmm, with your patches on Linus git I get the following on s390:
    >> >
    >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c: In function 'SYSC_sysctl':
    >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:126: error: implicit declaration of function
    >> > 'lock_kernel'
    >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:129: error: implicit declaration of function
    >> > 'unlock_kernel'
    >>
    >> Bah. A missing smp_lock.h.
    >
    > BTW, there is a patch in the kill-the-BKL tree to push down the BKL
    > further into the sysctl handlers. It may be a good idea to put that
    > into your tree, or to redo the same thing there differently, since
    > you already have a patch series touching this area.

    Thanks for the info.

    The primary proc path already doesn't need the lock_kernel(). My next
    patch winds up killing the entire binary path and rebuilding on top of
    /proc/sys. Which removes that lock_kernel().

    Which I think elegantly solves all of the sysctl BKL lock issues.

    Which is probably why I missed the compilation failure.

    Eric




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-06 13:57    [W:0.022 / U:121.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site