Andi Kleen wrote: > 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 ;-) > Sorry about the noise here - I now notice that not all .ioctl function pointers have the option of changing to .unlocked_ioctl. In this case, the ioctl is in the struct scsi_host_template, rather than struct file_operations. I'll try to be a little more careful about the git grepping in the future. -- Kevin Winchester - 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
