Vous m'avez dit récemment : > 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 <mathieu.segaud@xxxxxxxxx> > > 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 :) -- Mathieu ps: I just posted a set of patches for reiserfs that may suffer the same ugly style - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
