On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 19:59 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Really, all this is doing is open coding what the ioctl handler is doing > > anyway, isn't it? in which case, why bother to change it at all? > > Because once it's open coded it is visible and can then be eliminated. > Does SCSI need the BKL at all? No, of course not ... it hasn't for ages, otherwise linux performance would be in the tank. If we require the BKL at all in the ioctl path it will be to protect the non-SCSI structures we have to use. Is there any guide to which structures in the kernel still require the BKL? > But perhaps for such a long ioctl handler it would be better to move > the lock/unlock_kernel()s into the individual case ...: statements; > then it could be eliminated step by step. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
