Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/11] sysctl: Separate the binary sysctl logic into it's own file. | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:55:23 -0800 |
| |
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes:
> On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> writes: >> >> > Am Freitag 06 November 2009 01:41:44 schrieb Eric W. Biederman: >> >> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> >> >> >> >> In preparation for more invasive cleanups separate the core >> >> binary sysctl logic into it's own file. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> >> > >> > Hmm, with your patches on Linus git I get the following on s390: >> > >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c: In function 'SYSC_sysctl': >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:126: error: implicit declaration of function >> > 'lock_kernel' >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:129: error: implicit declaration of function >> > 'unlock_kernel' >> >> Bah. A missing smp_lock.h. > > BTW, there is a patch in the kill-the-BKL tree to push down the BKL > further into the sysctl handlers. It may be a good idea to put that > into your tree, or to redo the same thing there differently, since > you already have a patch series touching this area.
Thanks for the info.
The primary proc path already doesn't need the lock_kernel(). My next patch winds up killing the entire binary path and rebuilding on top of /proc/sys. Which removes that lock_kernel().
Which I think elegantly solves all of the sysctl BKL lock issues.
Which is probably why I missed the compilation failure.
Eric
| |