lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromOGAWA Hirofumi <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/6] fat: BKL ioctl pushdown
DateThu, 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>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-05 20:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2010