Re: [PATCH 1/3, RFC] misc char dev BKL pushdown

[Jonathan Corbet]

Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> this open func already has a spinlock protecting it.  doesnt that mean
> we dont need the bkl in it ?

The existence of a spinlock is a good sign.  But, until somebody has
looked at the code and verified that said lock is really protecting
everything, it's best to leave the BKL protection (which has always been
there, just at a higher level) in place.

jon
--
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/