Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:17:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:17:01 -0400 Received: from 12-231-243-94.client.attbi.com ([12.231.243.94]:13331 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:17:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:17:03 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Rick Lindsley Cc: Dave Hansen , kernel-janitor-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BKL removal Message-ID: <20020709201703.GC27999@kroah.com> References: <20020709043857.GA24418@kroah.com> <200207091931.g69JVD417360@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200207091931.g69JVD417360@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.21 (i586) Reply-By: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:21:37 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 785 Lines: 18 On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:31:13PM -0700, Rick Lindsley wrote: > Unless a developer is relying on the release-on-sleep mechanism or the > nested-locks-without-deadlock mechanism, there's no reason an instance > of the BKL can't be replaced with another spinlock. Um, not true. You can call schedule with the BKL held, not true for a spinlock. And see the oft repeated messages on lkml about the spinlock/semaphore hell that some oses have turned into when they try to do this. Let's learn from history this time around please. greg k-h - 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/