From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755399Ab0I2McD (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:32:03 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:54008 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752586Ab0I2McB (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:32:01 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Petr Vandrovec Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove BKL usage from ncpfs Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:31:54 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.35-16-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, aia21@cam.ac.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk References: <20100926234733.GA31884@vana.vc.cvut.cz> <201009271616.42190.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009291431.54709.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:LvftJzusCHtxGsr42PXoZ6AMwKbQG7TTM3IJ0cGbAmO 7e7NIMDFZgV8LApp5EwgA7SpIF+5T22DUtmJQQNhj3AY+1ZQ/2 i8ssgjNIQYeenL/GKhRix/sfN7PcFdezb4vFDqdhozQ+mK9c4E C2Fa4w0hb8+R3KFHcIMfXE8ZbGqFv6U+5hM2op2Yah0yeSsbcE zuSkj9ordJuA5g1opCkYA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 27 September 2010, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > Yes, I believe it is not necessary. fill_super(sb) should not run > concurrently with anything else because MS_BORN and MS_ACTIVE are not > set yet so nobody else should use this sb from VFS. One thing which > seems to be missing is doing lock_sock() around code which sets > sk->sk_{error_report,data_ready,write_space} - there does not seem to > be anything else to protect ipv4/ipv6/ipx from seeing partially > updated pointers on systems where these writes are not atomic - that's > ncpfs2.patch. > > Also I found some whitespace problems, and one missing const, so if > you could merge ncpfs3.patch & ncpfs4.patch with original BKL removal, > it would be cool. Or I can resend all 4 patches as one bigger diff if > you prefer. Generally I prefer separate patches for changes that make sense to be split, so I left ncpfs2.patch separately. I think it would be nice to do the first patch in smaller steps, but since you are the maintainer, I'm not going to complain ;-) Applied both patches to my bkl/vfs series now. Arnd