Re: [PATCH 0/6] Kill the bkl in procfs

[Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 08:20:09AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This patchset drops any use of the big kernel lock from procfs.
> May be there is still one or two NULL llseek somewhere but I
> think we have fixed 99% of those that were in the procfs core.
> 
> Users of procfs implementing an ioctl have not been easy to
> spot automatically (there are hundreds of procfs users)
> as there are many indirect ways to register a procfs, depending
> on the subsystem you are.
> 
> So for those who want to verify the reliability of this check,
> you can look at the script there:
> 
> 	http://tglx.de/~fweisbec/seek.py
> 
> Beware it's very dirty! The hardcoded path are those I had
> to check manually (or that I added to the automatic check).
> One day I should learn how to use Coccinelle instead.
> 
> In the worst case, the remaining ones this script or my eyes
> forgot will trigger a warning.
> 
> Thanks.


I've applied the patchset to

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/frederic/random-tracing.git
	bkl/procfs

Thanks.




> 
> 
> Arnd Bergmann (1):
>   procfs: Kill BKL in llseek on proc base
> 
> Frederic Weisbecker (5):
>   procfs: Use generic_file_llseek in /proc/kcore
>   procfs: Use generic_file_llseek in /proc/kmsg
>   procfs: Use generic_file_llseek in /proc/vmcore
>   procfs: Push down the bkl from ioctl
>   procfs: Kill the bkl in ioctl
> 
>  drivers/char/i8k.c                  |   53 +++++++++++++++------
>  drivers/isdn/divert/divert_procfs.c |   90 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  fs/proc/base.c                      |   10 ++++-
>  fs/proc/inode.c                     |    4 +-
>  fs/proc/kcore.c                     |    1 +
>  fs/proc/kmsg.c                      |    1 +
>  fs/proc/vmcore.c                    |    1 +
>  net/sunrpc/cache.c                  |   20 ++++++--
>  8 files changed, 123 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>