[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] devfs v181 available

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Richard Gooch wrote:

> > Irrelevant. BKL provides an exclusion only on non-blocking areas.
> Yeah, I know all that.

So what the hell are you talking about?

> > _Moved_ them there from the callers of these functions. And AFAICS
> > you do need BKL for get_devfs_entry_...(); otherwise relocation of
> > the table will be able to screw you inside of that function. Now, it
> > will merrily screw you anyway in a lot of places, but that's another
> > story.
> OK, so it was another global change.

Moving BKL into the ->readlink() and ->follow_link()? Sure, it was a global
change. About a year ago.

> Question: assuming data fed to vfs_follow_link() is "safe", does it
> need the BKL? I can see that vfs_readlink() obviously doesn't need
> it. From reading Documentation/filesystems/Locking I suspect it
> doesn't need the BKL, but the way I read it says "follow_link() method
> does not *have* the BKL already". But that doesn't explicitely say
> whether vfs_follow_link() needs it.

vfs_follow_link() doesn't need it. Moreover, if data fed to it is unsafe
without BKL, you are screwed even if you take BKL. So assumption above
is bogus - you _never_ need BKL on that call.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.054 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site