Re: [PATCH 3/6] fat: BKL ioctl pushdown

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Thu, 6 May 2010, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>
>> John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > Convert fat_generic_ioctl and fat_dir_ioctl to unlocked_ioctls
>> > and push down the bkl into those functions.
>> 
>> I guess this is the part of batch ioctl conversion stuff though, those
>> ioctl of FAT don't need BKL at all. Because all of those should already
>> be protected by inode->i_mutex.
>> 
>> Removing BKL and then cleanup after this patch would be almost same with
>> reverting this patch. So, could you just convert to unlocked_ioctl
>> instead?
>
> That's probably not a good idea, without a little bit more analysis, 
> otherwise it's quite easy to introduce subtle bugs.

What analysis? Who do it? I thought about removing BKL of FAT from
several years ago. I was reviewing FAT multiple times, and I'm always
testing FAT without BKL.

If you are going to do, could you do it instead of this patch?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/