From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] autofs: Pushdown the bkl from ioctl Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:03:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20100519190307.GC9752@nowhere> References: <1274289855-10001-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1274289855-10001-3-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <4BF4279C.2000805@zytor.com> <20100519180832.GA9752@nowhere> <4BF42A5E.6060503@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:date:from:to:cc :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=4q/CzXUpxb6AnwBTGUH+KUxUH00rbvO6YNE2Z3As7NA=; b=IMjfX8327NFpPEmw2n+v7zOBtYVYxj01G18y3ten2RauIbCmnoYEBpRennvYz33SoD bKIriMfGKQrIQu9sMgQ+LNoMFTyKgH6kEgRIeiHVeA/fC3knyDjpCeNDYACv8PN3KJ7r kxgzVViFWd/glpdZ1im/xqBVDAkZP8ukoJ4Rw= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BF42A5E.6060503@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Autofs , Thomas Gleixner , John Kacur , Arnd Bergmann On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:13:50AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 05/19/2010 10:24 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >>> * generate kernel reactions > >>> */ > >>> -static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, > >>> +static int autofs_root_ioctl_unlocked(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, > >>> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > >>> { > >>> struct autofs_sb_info *sbi = autofs_sbi(inode->i_sb); > >>> @@ -579,3 +579,16 @@ static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, > >>> return -ENOSYS; > >>> } > >>> } > >>> + > >>> +static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *filp, > >>> + unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > >>> +{ > >> > >> The choice of naming here seems reverse in my opinion. > > > > > > Oh, why? > > > > The function that holds the bkl calls its unlocked version. > > > > But it's not ... it is locked at that point. It's not lock*ing*, but it > is not *unlocked*, either. Furthermore, it is directly contradicting > the naming scheme of the ops structure. > > -hpa > Would you prefer me to resend a patch?