On Tue, 27 Apr 2010, Jörn Engel wrote:

> On Tue, 27 April 2010 17:05:50 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 April 2010, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 April 2010 16:24:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure that logfs doesn't rely on the BKL, but right now,
> > > > we're just pushing it down.
> > > 
> > > So why do you create logfs_unlocked_ioctl in the first place? ;)
> > 
> > I don't want to get caught in discussions on whether any of my patches
> > might introduce silent bugs in something I'm not maintaining. Also
> > to put pressure on maintainers by threatening them to make their code
> > ugly.
> > 
> > If you just add a patch to convert to ->unlocked_ioctl without
> > the BKL, we can drop this patch ;-)
> 
> I guess that's threatening enough.  Is this for the next merge window or
> still the current one?
> 

Hasn't the "current" merge window been over with for weeks? I was assuming 
that bkl push down, or other bkl patches are for the next merge window.

You can ask Linus whether he'll take a convert unlocked_ioctl now or not.

John