From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: Push ioctl BKL down into the i2c code Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:53:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20080523195302.42846394@hyperion.delvare> References: <20080522222327.1af72794@core> <20080523093545.175c769c@hyperion.delvare> <48368466.5040600@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <48368466.5040600@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Richter Cc: Alan Cox , i2c@lm-sensors.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.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