On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:50:47PM -0400, Kevin Winchester wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > > Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors > > could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl. > > > <snip> > > I notice that every driver in drivers/ata uses a .ioctl that points to > ata_scsi_ioctl(). I could add the BKL to that function, and then change This might be a little more complicated. These are funnelled through the block/SCSI layers which might not have separate unlocked ioctl callbacks yet. Would be probably not very difficult to add though. > all of the drivers to .unlocked_ioctl, but I assume this would be a > candidate to actually clean up by determining why the lock is needed and > removing it if necessary. Does anyone know off-hand the reason for > needing the lock (I assume someone does or it wouldn't have survived > this long)? If the lock is absolutely required, then I can write the > patch to add lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel(). Just sending the patch to add lock/unlock_kernel() is probably a good idea anyways -- Jeff will then feel bad over it and eventually remove it when he figures out it is safe ;-) -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
