Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:08:17 -0400 | From | "Xin Zhao" <> | Subject | Re: question about nfs_execute_read: why do we need to do lock_kernel? |
| |
Thanks for your reply. So the only reason is for rpc auditing? If so, why not just lock the code that updating the audit information? Now the code is:
lock_kernel() rpc_execute() unlock_kernel().
That means the kernel will be blocked when rpc is executed, which could take long time. Even if rpc_execute() won't take very long, this implementation still looks inefficient. That's why I am a little confused on this point.
Any further thought?
Xin
On 4/25/06, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 00:57 -0400, Xin Zhao wrote: > > This question may be dumb. But I am curious why in nfs_execute_read() > > function, rpc_execute is bracketed with lock_kernel() and > > unlock_kernel()? > > We're keeping the BKL for the moment simply because we are not done > auditing all the RPC code for potential races. When that is done, we > will be able to remove it. > > Cheers, > Trond > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |