From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266789AbUHIRnU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:43:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266797AbUHIRnU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:43:20 -0400 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:30423 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266789AbUHIRnM (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:43:12 -0400 Message-ID: <4117B849.8090705@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 12:45:45 -0500 From: Josh Aas User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , steiner@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reduce bkl usage in do_coredump References: <41178C49.3080305@sgi.com> <1092072631.6496.14553.camel@nighthawk> In-Reply-To: <1092072631.6496.14553.camel@nighthawk> 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 > Might be nicer to just put the locking inside of format_corename() if it > is the function itself that really needs the locking. If another use of > it popped up, that user would get the locking for free and couldn't > possibly forget it. Also, it's nicer to put the lock closer to the code > that actually needs it. Untested patch to do that attached. Probably a good idea. > BTW, were you actually seeing a BKL contention problem, or was this just > for cleanliness? We have actually seen contention in do_coredump. -- Josh Aas Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI) Linux System Software 651-683-3068