From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:29:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:29:16 -0400 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:23754 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:29:15 -0400 Message-ID: <3D28CF4D.4030702@us.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 16:31:25 -0700 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oliver Neukum CC: Thunder from the hill , Greg KH , kernel-janitor-discuss , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BKL removal References: <3D28C3F0.7010506@us.ibm.com> <200207080123.00487.oliver@neukum.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oliver Neukum wrote: >>BKL use isn't right or wrong -- it isn't a case of creating a deadlock >>or a race. I'm picking a relatively random function from "grep -r >>lock_kernel * | grep /usb/". I'll show what I think isn't optimal >>about it. > > Perhaps, we could agree that the BKL is used wrongly if it > won't fulfill its presumed function, or fulfills another function > than the obvious without a comment stating that, or fulfills > a non obvious function without any comment ? I wouldn't want to make comments the qualifier for correct use, because that makes large chunks of the kernel "wrong" for lack of comments. In a development series we also don't want to restrict ourselves to changes of things that are wrong. We can also improve things that are bad. -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com