Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394

[Stefan Richter]

Andi Kleen wrote:
[Daniel Drake wrote:]
>> Adding Andi Kleen to CC, who added the BKL around __video1394_ioctl a
>> long while back (when converting video1394 to compat_ioctl).
>> 
>> I don't feel that any replacement protection is needed, since the
>> critical sections (where structures are used both in interrupts and in
>> file_operations) are already protected by spinlocks.
> 
> Fine by me. I just did it to preserve old semantics because I didn't want
> to audit the 1394 locking.  But if you think it's not needed feel free to remove
> them.

Thanks for the info. Daniel, do you want to resend a signed-off patch?
And __video1394_ioctl and its wrapper video1394_ioctl can certainly be
merged then.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-==- =-=- =--==
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/