Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 May 2008 19:53:02 +0200 | From | Jean Delvare <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i2c: Push ioctl BKL down into the i2c code |
| |
Hi Stefan,
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:46:30 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: > Jean Delvare wrote: > > Description of what the patch does and why it is needed, please. I > > can't apply it without that. My first impression is a patch making the > > code bigger and more complex with no obvious benefit ;) > > I wasn't asked, but: > > The patch description was factored out. ;-) > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/22/333
Hardly fits as a proper description for the git commit... But thanks for the pointer.
> AFAIU it's a preparation for > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > @@ ?? @@ struct file_operations { > unsigned int (*poll) (struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *); > - int (*ioctl) (struct inode *, struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long); > long (*unlocked_ioctl) (struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long); > > Obvious benefits: > - No new .ioctl()s.
I fail to see how this is related to the locking change.
> - Heads up for subsystem people: "Did you know you are taking the BKL? > You probably don't need to, and you definitely don't want to."
Good one... I admit that I didn't know.
-- Jean Delvare
| |