If you check the web page at
http://lse.sourceforge.net/lockhier/patches.html, you'll find
additional information on why this patch was produced. The most common
"no-op" was that (BKL) locking was done during release but not during
open. In some cases, there truly are things to guard. In some cases,
there really isn't. In all cases, nothing was really being correctly
guarded.
Oliver.Neukum@lrz.uni-muenchen.de replied:
While this is doubtlessly true, please don't do things like removing the
lock from interfaces like the call to open() in the input subsystem.
People may depend on the lock being held there. Having open() under BKL
simplifies writing USB device drivers.
The good news is, the patches addressed unnecessary BKL's in release(),
not open(), so I don't think the patches we submitted will cause you to
lose any sleep. The better news is, Christoph has even produced a
patch to address your concerns (which it sounds like you like.) The
best news is, the kernel is cleaner now in multiple ways.
Life is good.
Rick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/