Messages in this thread |  | | | From | OGAWA Hirofumi <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/6] fat: BKL ioctl pushdown | | Date | Thu, 06 May 2010 03:30:07 +0900 |
| |
John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, 6 May 2010, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > >> John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > Convert fat_generic_ioctl and fat_dir_ioctl to unlocked_ioctls >> > and push down the bkl into those functions. >> >> I guess this is the part of batch ioctl conversion stuff though, those >> ioctl of FAT don't need BKL at all. Because all of those should already >> be protected by inode->i_mutex. >> >> Removing BKL and then cleanup after this patch would be almost same with >> reverting this patch. So, could you just convert to unlocked_ioctl >> instead? > > That's probably not a good idea, without a little bit more analysis, > otherwise it's quite easy to introduce subtle bugs.
What analysis? Who do it? I thought about removing BKL of FAT from several years ago. I was reviewing FAT multiple times, and I'm always testing FAT without BKL.
If you are going to do, could you do it instead of this patch?
Thanks. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
|  |