Re: Unnecessary BKL contention in video1394

From: Andi Kleen
Date: Thu Oct 19 2006 - 09:28:13 EST



> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/