Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:18:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:18:50 -0400 Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.83]:19586 "EHLO mailout07.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:18:49 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Oliver Neukum To: Dave Hansen , Thunder from the hill Subject: Re: BKL removal Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 01:23:00 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 Cc: Greg KH , kernel-janitor-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3D28C3F0.7010506@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <3D28C3F0.7010506@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200207080123.00487.oliver@neukum.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 822 Lines: 22 > BKL use isn't right or wrong -- it isn't a case of creating a deadlock > or a race. I'm picking a relatively random function from "grep -r > lock_kernel * | grep /usb/". I'll show what I think isn't optimal > about it. Perhaps, we could agree that the BKL is used wrongly if it won't fulfill its presumed function, or fulfills another function than the obvious without a comment stating that, or fulfills a non obvious function without any comment ? The first case is IMHO the worst, because, although BKL can't hurt technically, it obscures locking. Regards Oliver - 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/