From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:21:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH] display7seg: implement ->unlocked_ioctl and ->compat_ioctl
Message-Id: <20051108212109.GA26444@lst.de>
List-Id: <sparclinux.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20051107194232.GD32019@lst.de>
In-Reply-To: <20051107194232.GD32019@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:19:21PM -0800, Eric Brower wrote:
> On 11/8/05, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:48:57PM -0800, Eric Brower wrote:
> > > Are we intentionally locking the kernel twice in the ioctl handler?
> >
> > No.  Otoh the BKL is recursive so it doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm speaking specifically of the patch doing the following within the
> driver's ioctl handler:
> 
>   lock_kernel()
>     ... handle ioctl
>   lock_kernel()
> 
> We ought to be calling unlock_kernel() at the end, correct?

Umm, yes.  Sorry, this is a typo and the second one should be a
unlock_kernel().