Vous m'avez dit récemment : > 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 :) 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-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
