Re: [patch 11/28] nvram: Drop the bkl from nvram_llseek()

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 11:08:10PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:31:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 October 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > There is nothing to protect inside nvram_llseek(), the file
> > > offset doesn't need to be protected and nvram_len is only
> > > initialized from an __init path.
> > > 
> > > It's safe to remove the big kernel lock there.
> > > 
> > 
> > The generic_nvram driver still uses ->ioctl instead of ->unlocked_ioctl.
> > I guess it would be helpful to change that in the same series, so we
> > don't get the BKL back as soon as someone does a pushdown into the
> > remaining ioctl functions.
> > 
> > 	Arnd <><
> 
> 
> Right!
> I'll add that in a second patch.
> 
> I've completely forgotten this ioctl/unlocked_ioctl thing.


BTW, I was focusing on the lock_kernel() callsites in the kernel which
are around 626 (I've excluded reiserfs)

Now I'm adding the ioctl() sites too:

git-grep "\.ioctl *=" | grep -P "^\S+\.c" | wc -l
452

Hehe :)

--
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/