Re: [PATCH 2/8] autofs: Pushdown the bkl from ioctl

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:13:50AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 05/19/2010 10:24 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >>>   * generate kernel reactions
> >>>   */
> >>> -static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
> >>> +static int autofs_root_ioctl_unlocked(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
> >>>  			     unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct autofs_sb_info *sbi = autofs_sbi(inode->i_sb);
> >>> @@ -579,3 +579,16 @@ static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
> >>>  		return -ENOSYS;
> >>>  	}
> >>>  }
> >>> +
> >>> +static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> >>> +			     unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> >>> +{
> >>
> >> The choice of naming here seems reverse in my opinion.
> > 
> > 
> > Oh, why?
> > 
> > The function that holds the bkl calls its unlocked version.
> > 
> 
> But it's not ... it is locked at that point.  It's not lock*ing*, but it
> is not *unlocked*, either.  Furthermore, it is directly contradicting
> the naming scheme of the ops structure.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 


Would you prefer me to resend a patch?

--
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/