Re: [PATCH 0/5] Pushdown bkl from v4l ioctls

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Saturday 01 May 2010 11:55:37 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> However, I do think it would be better to
> create a video_ioctl2_bkl rather than add a video_ioctl2_unlocked. The current
> video_ioctl2 function is already unlocked. So you are subtle changing the
> behavior of video_ioctl2. Not a good idea IMHO. And yes, grepping for
> video_ioctl2_bkl is also easy to do and makes it more obvious that the BKL is
> used in drivers that call this.

Yes, that makes sense. It also allows working towards a goal of 'removing
video_ioctl2_bkl', which is easier to understand than 'converting video_ioctl2
users to video_ioctl2_unlocked and later renaming that'.

	Arnd
--
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/