Re: [RFC] annotating the remaining BKL users

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Wed Sep 08 2010 - 20:21:52 EST


On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'd like to hear preferences for one approach or the other,
> especially from Linus, so we can give this some better testing
> in -next before the merge window.

Hmm. I like your patch. It seems to have a good balance of "select
BKL" (for architectures that require it for some reason) and "depends
on BKL" (for individual modules).

That said, I'd also like to see a comment _why_ the architectures in
question depends on the BKL. Some of those look pretty historical (the
sparc32 register window spill code? Does it _really_ need the BKL at
all, or is that just a remnant of "let's get the BKL at each kernel
entry").

So with the added rule that "each select BKL needs a quick comment
why", I'd be happy with it. And maybe it would make people take a
second look.

Linus
--
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/