On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 07:59:44PM +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? > > 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. This style of conversion is going to cause a lot of churn -- re-architecting this function to be single-exit, then presumably when the lock_kernel calls are pushed further down or eliminated, turning it back into a multiple-exit function. I suggest that for complex ioctl handlers, it be left to the maintainers to handle, and handle it properly all at once, rather than a gradual pushdown. You could argue that unlocked_ioctl has been around for a long time and people haven't made that move yet. But there's been no pressure before now to do so, and I think people would rather convert their own code than have somebody else do it. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
