On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:53:21PM +0200, John Kacur wrote: > > No problem with that. Setting no_llseek or generic_file_llseek_unlocked, > > depending on the context is the right thing to do. > > > > What I'm wondering about concerns the future code that will have > > no llsek() implemented in their fops. > > > > We can't continue to use default_llseek() for future code unless we > > want to continue these post reviews and fixes forever. > > > > I'm thinking that the simplier approach, would be to make the > default_llseek the unlocked one. Then you only have to audit the drivers > that have the BKL - ie the ones we are auditing anyway, and explicitly set > them to the bkl locked llseek. > > There might be a hidden interaction though between the non-unlocked > variety of ioctls and default llseek though.
I fear that won't work because the bkl in default_llseek() does not only synchronizes with others uses of the bkl in a driver, it also synchronizes lseek() itself. As an example offset change is not atomic. This is a long long, so updating its value is not atomic in 32 bits archs. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
