From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] Switch ioctl functions of drivers/scsi/sg.c to unlocked_ioctl
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:59:44 +0100
Message-ID: <20080110185944.GA1690@one.firstfloor.org>
References: <20080110180529.GA32640@skl-net.de> <1199991298.3141.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1759943AbYAJS50@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1199991298.3141.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Andre Noll <maan@systemlinux.org>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

> Really, all this is doing is open coding what the ioctl handler is doing
> anyway, isn't it? in which case, why bother to change it at all?

Because once it's open coded it is visible and can then be eliminated.
Does SCSI need the BKL at all?

But perhaps for such a long ioctl handler it would be better to move
the lock/unlock_kernel()s into the individual case ...: statements;
then it could be eliminated step by step.

-Andi