Re: [PATCH 01/11] sysctl: Separate the binary sysctl logic into it's own file.

From: Eric W. Biederman
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 07:55:39 EST

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > Am Freitag 06 November 2009 01:41:44 schrieb Eric W. Biederman:
>> >> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> In preparation for more invasive cleanups separate the core
>> >> binary sysctl logic into it's own file.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at