On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2009 22:41:06 schrieb Alan Stern: > > Oliver: > > > > The BKL gets used in several places within usbcore. As far as I can > > tell, all but one of them are unnecessary -- the exception being > > usb_device_poll() in devices.c. And that should be replaced with a > > private mutex, or perhaps we could use usbfs_mutex. > > With respect to poll I agree. > With respect to open() I dimly remember that hiddev needs BKL. Maybe > jkosina remembers. Jiri, do you know the answer? We're talking about usb_open() in drivers/usb/core/file.c. I don't see why that should need the BKL. > I am sceptical about file.c::remount. ext2 takes it, too. Yeah, okay. > usb_device_lseek() would also need a spinlock. Same for usbdev_lseek(). I guess it's easier to let them both use the BKL. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
