On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:04:44 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is no gadget driver in the tree that
actually implements the ioctl operation, so
obviously it is not necessary to hold the
BKL around the call.
Should the callback in ops be renamed to unlocked_ioctl then as to not
create confusion? Just a thought.
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/f_fs.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/f_fs.c
@@ -714,9 +714,7 @@ static long ffs_ep0_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned code, unsigned long value)
struct ffs_function *func = ffs->func;
ret = func ? ffs_func_revmap_intf(func, value) : -ENODEV;
} else if (gadget->ops->ioctl) {
- lock_kernel();
ret = gadget->ops->ioctl(gadget, code, value);
- unlock_kernel();
} else {
ret = -ENOTTY;
}
--- a/drivers/usb/gadget/inode.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/inode.c
@@ -1299,11 +1299,9 @@ static long dev_ioctl (struct file *fd, unsigned code, unsigned long value)
struct usb_gadget *gadget = dev->gadget;
long ret = -ENOTTY;
- if (gadget->ops->ioctl) {
- lock_kernel();
+ if (gadget->ops->ioctl)
ret = gadget->ops->ioctl (gadget, code, value);
- unlock_kernel();
- }
+
return ret;
}
--
Best regards, _ _
| Humble Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
| Computer Science, Michał "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
+----[mina86*mina86.com]---[mina86*jabber.org]----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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
