Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752988AbYAQMNA (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:13:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751253AbYAQMMu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:12:50 -0500 Received: from def92-3-81-56-114-101.fbx.proxad.net ([81.56.114.101]:60093 "EHLO barad-dur.regala.cx" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751178AbYAQMMt (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:12:49 -0500 To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sct@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl References: <1200565824-362-1-git-send-email-mathieu.segaud@regala.cx> <200801171254.04071.arnd@arndb.de> <87myr4ek82.fsf@barad-dur.regala.cx> From: Mathieu SEGAUD Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:12:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87myr4ek82.fsf@barad-dur.regala.cx> (Mathieu SEGAUD's message of "Thu\, 17 Jan 2008 12\:59\:25 +0100") Message-ID: <87fxwwejlr.fsf@barad-dur.regala.cx> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 35 Vous m'avez dit r?cemment : > Vous m'avez dit r?cemment : > >> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote: >>> >>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly >>> exposing BKL's uses. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud >> >> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(), >> which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL already held. >> >> This is allowed with the BKL, but really bad style that you should >> avoid. I assume the ext3 and ext4dev versions of your patch have >> the same issue, but I didn't check in detail. > > yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add > _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both > extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl(). > Any comments on such a strategy ? thanks a lot for the reminder :) Well as I am not awake enough, this would sum up to get rid of lock/unlock_kernel() around extX_ioctl() calls... Will repost with theses changes. Thanks. -- Mathieu -- 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/