From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Winchester Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:47 -0400 Message-ID: <47840C57.6000304@gmail.com> References: <20080108164015.GC31504@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080108164015.GC31504@one.firstfloor.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com, gorcunov@gmail.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors > could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl. > I notice that every driver in drivers/ata uses a .ioctl that points to ata_scsi_ioctl(). I could add the BKL to that function, and then change all of the drivers to .unlocked_ioctl, but I assume this would be a candidate to actually clean up by determining why the lock is needed and removing it if necessary. Does anyone know off-hand the reason for needing the lock (I assume someone does or it wouldn't have survived this long)? If the lock is absolutely required, then I can write the patch to add lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel(). -- Kevin Winchester