From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] autofs: Pushdown the bkl from ioctl Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:13:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4BF42A5E.6060503@zytor.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100519180832.GA9752@nowhere> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Autofs , Thomas Gleixner , John Kacur , Arnd Bergmann 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