lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: BKL removal
Date

> > "up" is a local variable. There is no point in protecting its
> > allocation. If the goal is to protect data inside "up", there should
> > probably be a subsystem-level lock for all "struct uhci_hcd"s or a
> > lock contained inside of the structure itself. Is this the kind of
> > example you're looking for?
>
> So the BKL isn't wrong here, but incorrectly used?

The BKL, unless used unbalanced, can never cause a bug.
It could be insufficient or superfluous, but never be really buggy in itself.

> Is it really okay to "lock the whole kernel" because of one struct file?
> This brings us back to spinlocks...
>
> You're possibly right about this one. What did Greg K-H say?

I don't speak for Greg, but in this example it could be dropped IMO.
The spinlock protects the critical section anyway. As a rule, if you
do a kmalloc without GFP_ATOMIC under BKL you are doing either insufficient
locking (you may need a semaphore) or useless locking.

This should have been posted on linux-usb long ago.

Regards
Oliver

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans