Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:41:07 +0200 (CEST) | From | John Kacur <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sony_pi: Remove the BKL from sonypi_misc_open |
| |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08:57AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 October 2009, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 19 October 2009, John Kacur wrote: > > > > How does this look? (Version 2 of the patch follows) > > > > > > Looks good now. > > > > > > > A bit of background: > > > > Doing only one of the two conversions is a correct patch as well > > of course, I just want to make sure you don't have to go through all > > the same files again once someone does a blind pushdown into the ioctl > > and llseek functions, so once you prove that a specific driver doesn't > > need the BKL, please always make sure to remove it from all three places. > > > > I fear that the llseek part will get interesting as well, just because > > we call default_llseek instead of no_ll by default currently. > > It might be a good idea to add one of .llseek=no_llseek or > > .llseek=generic_file_llseek in any file_operations that you prove > > to not require the BKL. > > > > Arnd <>< > > > What about a pusdown of default_lseek attribution for these > fops that don't have any llseek() (and rename it to > deprecated_default_lseek() ) > > Because we can probably fix these fops one by one but what > about the next drivers that will have no llseek() ? > > We can't attribute default_llseek() by default anymore for > further fops that are to come. > >
Frederic, I think it is still useful to explicity set to no_llseek, drivers that don't use llseek.
I also have to agree with you, that we should no longer be using a default_llseek that relies on the BKL.
That is a rather large effort though. All drivers that don't specify an llseek function, need to either set it to no_llseek, or as you are proposing a deprecated default_llseek that uses the bkl.
thinking of how to start this.
John
| |