On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:30:03AM +0000, John Bradford wrote:
> > > Woah! Hm, this is going to cause lots of problems in drivers that have
> > > been assuming that the BKL is grabbed during module unload, and during
> > > open(). Hm, time to just fallback on the argument, "module unloading is
> > > unsafe" :(
> >
> > Note that its the same in 2.4 as well. iirc, the BKL was removed from
> > module loading/unloading sometime in the 2.3 timeline.
>
> Surely no recent code should be making that assumption anyway - the
> BKL is being removed all over the place.
The TTY layer isn't "recent code", its "very old code", and (IMO)
removing the BKL from the TTY layer is a far from trivial matter.
I believe at this point in the 2.5 cycle, we should not be looking
to remove the BKL. We should be looking to fix the problems we know
about. That basically means:
- module refcounting
- interrupt races
- any other races (eg, tty_register_driver / tty_unregister_driver)
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:53 EST