Re: [PATCH, RFC] char dev BKL pushdown

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

> Right, unless Alan or Wim are confident enough that removing the
> BKL won't break the drivers (more than they are today).
> Almost all of the open functions go along the lines of
> 
> int open(struct file *f, struct inode *i)
> {
> 	if (wd_is_open)
> 		return -EBUSY;
> 	wd_is_open = 1;
> 	
> 	start_wd();
> 
> 	return nonseekable_open(f, i);
> }
> 
> nonseekable_open doesn't need the BKL by itself, and the wd_is_open
> variable is protected by the misc_mtx mutex.
> I can't see any scenario in which start_wd() would need the BKL, or

You need to review the use of misc_register(). Which is what I did
already and sorted out for each watchdog - the job is done and completed
and the various problem cases fixed. Watchdog has already been made BKL
removal safe in the patch series I sent.

Alan