Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Friday 06 November 2009, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Am Freitag 06 November 2009 01:41:44 schrieb Eric W. Biederman: >> >> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> In preparation for more invasive cleanups separate the core >> >> binary sysctl logic into it's own file. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Hmm, with your patches on Linus git I get the following on s390: >> > >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c: In function 'SYSC_sysctl': >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:126: error: implicit declaration of function >> > 'lock_kernel' >> > kernel/sysctl_binary.c:129: error: implicit declaration of function >> > 'unlock_kernel' >> >> Bah. A missing smp_lock.h. > > BTW, there is a patch in the kill-the-BKL tree to push down the BKL > further into the sysctl handlers. It may be a good idea to put that > into your tree, or to redo the same thing there differently, since > you already have a patch series touching this area. Thanks for the info. The primary proc path already doesn't need the lock_kernel(). My next patch winds up killing the entire binary path and rebuilding on top of /proc/sys. Which removes that lock_kernel(). Which I think elegantly solves all of the sysctl BKL lock issues. Which is probably why I missed the compilation failure. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
