From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755393AbYFYW66 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:58:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750923AbYFYW6t (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:58:49 -0400 Received: from smtp117.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.64.90]:37034 "HELO smtp117.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750770AbYFYW6s (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:58:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=KFN8ZFvFH70n3+DkubsTW9lo4+sLexleGFE14ioLFIoxYty5IQcd/PmUZgdIwapkgyzN7AlNUCJ6hmmZD/vEn1XZCjYz9EiU97E5mNK1YWXxLnrAdudty7TX06Rm6icveLW6b466eIG20lIEmvW2dQ9i9ucnlhFZPl4z9nj6s7o= ; X-YMail-OSG: nDjng9EVM1lmGuoDAB6CKUBQEg.IuBRVg65gsynw1TXKLtyDKQKs2MgYGW2VavJc5m_qQJucL8Eg2hgHYAwswj10Ymw6TdPTlyplkoZFZ6.cYwJFFxM1dN0vxibphh31Kzk- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: David Brownell To: Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: remove BKL for ioctl() Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:58:45 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: lkml , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Alan Cox References: <200806221955.42597.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080625163928.4da1f4a0@bike.lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20080625163928.4da1f4a0@bike.lwn.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806251558.45809.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:55:42 -0700 > David Brownell wrote: > > > Remove implicit use of BKL in ioctl() from the RTC framework. > > Looks good, I'll happily put it into the bkl-removal tree. It's in MM now too ... are all the bkl-removal patches going in at once, or will they be merged through their subsystems? > One question, though: > > > + err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&rtc->ops_lock); > > + if (err) > > + return -EBUSY; > > + > > Shouldn't that be -EINTR? I was just copying that usage from drivers/rtc/interface.c ... all users there return -EBUSY. If it's wrong in this patch it's probably wrong there too. I suspect EINTR is the answer in all cases. - Dave