On Friday 18 June 2010, Michał Nazarewicz wrote: > 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. No, we decided that the .unlocked_ioctl naming was a bad idea in the other places after all and they should eventually get renamed back to .ioctl once all the locked versions are gone. Arnd -- 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
