Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267189AbUIAPrK (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:47:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267205AbUIAPn7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:43:59 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.202.55]:8859 "EHLO sccrmhc11.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267197AbUIAPmH (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:42:07 -0400 Subject: Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel From: Albert Cahalan To: linux-kernel mailing list Cc: rlrevell@joe-job.com, mst@mellanox.co.il Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1094053222.431.7165.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 01 Sep 2004 11:40:22 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 846 Lines: 26 Michael S. Tsirkin writes: > Quoting Lee Revell [snip -- that was excessive] >> By adding a new ioctl you are adding a new use of >> the BKL. It has been suggested on dri-devel that >> this should be fixed. Is this even possible? > > I dont know - can the lock be released before the > call to filp->f_op->ioctl ? > > I assume the reason its there is for legacy > code - existing ioctls may be assuming the BKL > is taken, but maybe there could be another flag > in f_ops to let sys_ioctl release the lock before > doing the call ... > > Like this - would that be safe? Yes. It is proven to work. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/