On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:16:58 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > on Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:47:39 GMT > > tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Commit-ID: 40b798efe3460797a4ac928ee2e038774e2758eb > > > Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/40b798efe3460797a4ac928ee2e038774e2758eb > > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > AuthorDate: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:35:43 +0000 > > > Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > CommitDate: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:33:32 +0200 > > > > > > drivers: Remove BKL from misc_open > > > > > > misc_open() is already serialized with misc_mtx. Remove the BKL > > > locking which got there via the BKL pushdown. > > > > NAK. > > > > You can't simply assume the mutex is enough - you have to either push it > > down or review *every* possible called point below the lock_kernel take. > > > > In this case the open method of the misc devices below sometimes uses the > > BKL. > > The BKL got pushed down into the open methods of misc dev users and we > do not need to take it twice in a row, right ? Then the comment is misleading and you need to document that you've already pushed the BKL down into each user and checked them. Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|