lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL v2] Preparation for BKL'ed ioctl removal
    Date
    On Saturday 24 April 2010 20:47:17 Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >
    > > I don't see the point, frankly. Especially not outside the merge window,
    > > but quite frankly, I don't see it in general. The whole thing seems to be
    > > designed to be inconvenient, and to have a config option that I
    > > fundamentally don't believe in (CONFIG_BKL).
    >
    > More detail: it still leaves that old "ioctl" function pointer that needs
    > the BKL and is ungreppable. So the whole and only point of the patch is to
    > make our current mess even more complex, with three different cases. No,
    > thank you.
    >
    > Quite frankly, if you want to get rid of the BKL in ioctl's and make them
    > easily greppable, then I would suggest a simple renaming: rename the
    > current '->ioctl()' thing to '->bkl_ioctl()', and mark it deprecated. No
    > new config options, no new games. Just rename it. No need to mark things
    > with CONFIG_BKL, when you can just see it by virtue of them using
    > 'bkl_ioctl'.

    We want to do the rename in the next merge window and remove the old
    ->ioctl(), this patch is just a preparation for this so we can start
    queuing the patches for the rename in maintainer trees.
    The addition of the deprecated_ioctl() helper is not essential but
    let's us move all BKL users into loadable modules next.

    The CONFIG_BKL stuff is not a requirement for doing this, but something
    we /also/ want to do in the next merge window, i.e. mark all BKL users
    as CONFIG_BKL, not just the ones that use the locked_ioctl (or bkl_ioctl).

    I agree that it's now a bit late for this, but when I initially suggested
    this (before -rc3, IIRC), that would have given us the chance to queue up
    all the patches with a dependency on this for the next merge window.
    Now the current outlook is probably that we do a lot of the preparation
    work like this patch in 2.6.35-rc1, which moves the merge of the interesting
    parts out to the 2.6.36 timeframe.

    Arnd


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-04-24 21:57    [W:0.022 / U:1.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site