On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:50:47PM -0400, Kevin Winchester wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors
could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl.
snip
I notice that every driver in drivers/ata uses a .ioctl that points to
ata_scsi_ioctl(). I could add the BKL to that function, and then change
This might be a little more complicated. These
are funnelled through the block/SCSI layers which might not have separate
unlocked ioctl callbacks yet. Would be probably not very difficult
to add though.
all of the drivers to .unlocked_ioctl, but I assume this would be a
candidate to actually clean up by determining why the lock is needed and
removing it if necessary. Does anyone know off-hand the reason for
needing the lock (I assume someone does or it wouldn't have survived
this long)? If the lock is absolutely required, then I can write the
patch to add lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel().
Just sending the patch to add lock/unlock_kernel() is probably a good idea
anyways --
Jeff will then feel bad over it and eventually remove it when he figures out
it is safe ;-)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-ide in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
