On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 09:06:50AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > That's an advantage. Using the knowledge that sys_open() takes BKL in > > an example driver is not nice. > > But it's a fact of life. We need an external lock (from the internal > device structure) to prevent race conditions. open() takes the BKL. > So, let's use that. It's simple, nice, and it works.
Out of curiosity, exactly where does open() call lock_kernel()? Although there are loads of places it gets called in fs/*.c, I didn't notice any on the path for open(). > I've also talked to the people responsible for the big "remove the BKL" > push during 2.5, and they can't think of any reason why they would want > to get rid of the BKL on open() as it never showed up on any of their > benchmarks. Fair enough. Although if that's the only place (or rather, one of the few places) it remains, it wouldn't hurt to rename the lock. Fat chance of that, I know. > They have also moved on to other things and say they never > want to try to clean that up again, so we are probably safe for a few > kernel release cycles :) I bet they don't! Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
