From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marco Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] Pramfs: XIP operations Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:16:16 +0200 Message-ID: <4A34A3C0.80103@gmail.com> References: <4A33A841.6080902@gmail.com> <20090613140647.GD30053@uranus.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oJz5oTm7KeTYgkpqYjbRYreoVlKO5qG3EGI0vIrDq/U=; b=Qj/Y7qZdG+0IFh8wAl6QOh75eD7tfOy9+Drkp4NSkYoElDi1kYpgTf6e78l77iz6t+ kNQMaWMYsdA6YymbCf7wa6kfJASBqnruGMhzQN68ib3KiMt8Mmy0uRFc3g/esUe2SL4Z O4qeuJx+RbT6gcVzfAgeEiNhUw2CwaLFs+yWM= In-Reply-To: <20090613140647.GD30053@uranus.ravnborg.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Linux Embedded , Linux Kernel , Linux FS Devel , Daniel Walker Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Marco wrote: >> From: Marco Stornelli >> >> XIP operations. >> >> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli >> --- >> >> diff -uprN linux-2.6.30-orig/fs/pramfs/xip.c linux-2.6.30/fs/pramfs/xip.c >> --- linux-2.6.30-orig/fs/pramfs/xip.c 1970-01-01 01:00:00.000000000 +0100 >> +++ linux-2.6.30/fs/pramfs/xip.c 2009-06-13 12:54:26.000000000 +0200 >> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@ >> +/* >> + * FILE NAME fs/pramfs/xip.c >> + * >> + * BRIEF DESCRIPTION >> + * >> + * XIP operations. >> + * >> + * Copyright 2009 Marco Stornelli >> + * This file is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public >> + * License version 2. This program is licensed "as is" without any >> + * warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. >> + */ >> + >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include >> +#include "pram_fs.h" >> +#include "xip.h" >> + >> +static int pram_find_and_alloc_blocks(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, >> + sector_t *data_block, int create) >> +{ >> + int err = -EIO; >> + off_t block; >> + >> + lock_kernel(); > > Can we find other solutions than taking the BKL? > We are trying to get rid of it. > I know. It wasn't my intention to introduce it but as I said in my first patch I've done a porting of this code from 2.6.10 and to remove it I need time to analyze well the code to avoid deadlock and so on. If someone would like to help me I'd really appreciate it. However I see the use of BKL even in other recent "mainlined" fs as ext4, so I preferred to move the porting effort on other areas. However it's the first item on my todo list.