Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl

[Andi Kleen]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:50:47PM -0400, Kevin Winchester wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors
> > could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl.
> > 
> <snip>
> 
> I notice that every driver in drivers/ata uses a .ioctl that points to
> ata_scsi_ioctl().  I could add the BKL to that function, and then change

This might be a little more complicated. These
are funnelled through the block/SCSI layers which might not have separate
unlocked ioctl callbacks yet. Would be probably not very difficult
to add though.

> all of the drivers to .unlocked_ioctl, but I assume this would be a
> candidate to actually clean up by determining why the lock is needed and
> removing it if necessary.  Does anyone know off-hand the reason for
> needing the lock (I assume someone does or it wouldn't have survived
> this long)?  If the lock is absolutely required, then I can write the
> patch to add lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel().

Just sending the patch to add lock/unlock_kernel() is probably a good idea anyways --
Jeff will then feel bad over it and eventually remove it when he figures out
it is safe ;-)

-Andi
--
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/