On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, in a 2.5.x timeframe we should probably make sure that we do not
> have the need for a recursive BKL any more. That shouldn't be that hard to
> fix, especially with help from CHECKER to verify that we didn't forget
> some case.
True, but... I can easily see the situation when ->foo() and ->bar()
both call a helper function which needs BKL for a small piece of code.
->foo() callers take BKL (and it's choke-full of places that still need
BKL, anyway). ->bar() is called without BKL. Moreover, grabbing BKL
over the whole helper is a massive overkill.
ObUnrelated: fs/super.c is getting to the point where it naturally
falls into two files - one that deals with mount cache and all things
vfsmount-related, mount tree manipulations, etc. and another that deals
with superblocks. Mind if I split the thing?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 15 2001 - 21:00:11 EST