Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394

> Adding Andi Kleen to CC, who added the BKL around __video1394_ioctl a
> long while back (when converting video1394 to compat_ioctl).
> 
> I don't feel that any replacement protection is needed, since the
> critical sections (where structures are used both in interrupts and in
> file_operations) are already protected by spinlocks.

Fine by me. I just did it to preserve old semantics because I didn't want
to audit the 1394 locking.  But if you think it's not needed feel free to remove
them.

-andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394
    • From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394
    • From: Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
  • Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394
    • From: Daniel Drake <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: 2.6 patch] fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c:fill_super_meta(): fix NULL dereference
• Next by Date: Re: [2.6 patch] fs/gfs2/dir.c:gfs2_dir_write_data(): don't use an uninitialized variable
• Previous by thread: Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394
• Next by thread: Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]