Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl

[Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 916 bytes --]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Can you explain the rationale behind that running on the BKL? What type
> > of
>
> It used to always run with the BKL because everything used to
> and originally nobody wanted to review all ioctl handlers in tree to see if
> they can run with more fine grained locking. A lot probably can though.
>
> > things needs to be protected so that this huge hammer is needed? What
> > would be an earlier point to release the BKL?
>
> That depends on the driver. A lot don't need BKL at all and
> in others it can be easily eliminated. But it needs case-by-case
> review of the locking situation.
>
> The goal of the proposal here is just to make it more visible.

So if I write my own driver and have never heard of ioctls running on BKL 
before I can rather be sure that I just can change the interface of the ioctl 
function, put it in unlocked_ioctl and are fine? Cool.

Eike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]