From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Push ioctl BKL down into the i2c code Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 20:11:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20080524201125.1770d4a0@hyperion.delvare> References: <20080524100623.3b059a49@hyperion.delvare> <9e4733910805240750g21130ae9sd01e928edff8eb64@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9e4733910805240750g21130ae9sd01e928edff8eb64-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Jon Smirl Cc: Linux I2C , Alan Cox List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 24 May 2008 10:50:48 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > On 5/24/08, Jean Delvare wrote: > > From: Alan Cox > > > > This is part of the effort to get rid of the BKL. > > > > [JD: In fact i2c-dev doesn't need more locking than is already done > > for the other i2c drivers, so we can simply switch to unlocked_ioctl.] > > Note that the existing locking code in i2c (which may be correct > without the BLK) hasn't really been tested since the BKL was > serializing things before they got to the i2c code. On the i2c-dev side, yes. But all other i2c chip drivers didn't get to take the BKL, so the locking code in i2c (which definitely needs some clean ups, but that's another story) has been tested by these and i2c-dev isn't that different from them. That's why I believe no particular locking is needed for i2c-dev. But of course if someone can think of a reason why i2c-dev is different and needs additional care, please speak up. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c