Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3, RFC] misc char dev BKL pushdown | From | (Jonathan Corbet) | Date | Mon, 19 May 2008 18:21:16 -0600 |
| |
Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> this open func already has a spinlock protecting it. doesnt that mean > we dont need the bkl in it ?
The existence of a spinlock is a good sign. But, until somebody has looked at the code and verified that said lock is really protecting everything, it's best to leave the BKL protection (which has always been there, just at a higher level) in place.
jon
| |