Re: [PATCH] i2c: Push ioctl BKL down into the i2c code

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

Hi Stefan,

On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:46:30 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Description of what the patch does and why it is needed, please. I
> > can't apply it without that. My first impression is a patch making the
> > code bigger and more complex with no obvious benefit ;)
> 
> I wasn't asked, but:
> 
> The patch description was factored out.  ;-)
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/22/333

Hardly fits as a proper description for the git commit... But thanks
for the pointer.

> AFAIU it's a preparation for
> 
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ ?? @@ struct file_operations {
>  	unsigned int (*poll) (struct file *, struct poll_table_struct *);
> -	int (*ioctl) (struct inode *, struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long);
>  	long (*unlocked_ioctl) (struct file *, unsigned int, unsigned long);
> 
> Obvious benefits:
>   - No new .ioctl()s.

I fail to see how this is related to the locking change.

>   - Heads up for subsystem people:  "Did you know you are taking the BKL?
>     You probably don't need to, and you definitely don't want to."

Good one... I admit that I didn't know.

-- 
Jean Delvare