Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:29:50 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
       linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
       Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] Switch ioctl functions of drivers/scsi/sg.c to unlocked_ioctl
Message-ID: <20080110192950.GG747@one.firstfloor.org>
References: <20080110180529.GA32640@skl-net.de> <1199991298.3141.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080110185944.GA1690@one.firstfloor.org> <20080110190748.GA20152@skl-net.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080110190748.GA20152@skl-net.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 996
Lines: 25

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:07:48PM +0100, Andre Noll wrote:
> On 19:59, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > But perhaps for such a long ioctl handler it would be better to move
> > the lock/unlock_kernel()s into the individual case ...: statements;
> > then it could be eliminated step by step.
> 
> Sure, I can do that if James likes the idea. Since not all case
> statements need the BKL, we could add it only to those for which it
> isn't clear that it is unnecessary.
> 
> And this would actually improve something.

I still think it would be a good strategy to first add it to all
(in a essentially nop semantics patch) and then later eliminate
it from the cases that obviously don't need it. 

But yes eliminating it from all is the long term goal.

-Andi
--
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/