On 2010-11-21 09:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, I'd be ok with UDF doing a "select BKL" along with a "default n"
> for BKL itself.
>
> I think UDF currently is the only sane reason to have BKL enabled any
> more, and yes, it would probably make it easier to configure things.
UFS (which I
On 2010-11-21 09:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes, I'd be ok with UDF doing a "select BKL" along with a "default n"
> for BKL itself.
>
> I think UDF currently is the only sane reason to have BKL enabled any
> more, and yes, it would probably make it easier to configure things.
UFS (which I
Hi,
On Wed 17-11-10 16:26:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It seems the v4l and udf code has been worked out now and patches
> to kill the BKL there are finally making it upstream.
>
> As promised, here are the patches I did since the kernel summit
> to turn off the BKL by default. Given that -rc2 is
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> Just for info, UDF BKL removal patches seem to work fine but I want to
> give them some final SMP testing on Monday before pushing them to -next.
> I'm not sure how much people hurry with disabling the lock so if I should
> push them ASAP or wh
Hi,
On Wed 17-11-10 16:26:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> It seems the v4l and udf code has been worked out now and patches
> to kill the BKL there are finally making it upstream.
>
> As promised, here are the patches I did since the kernel summit
> to turn off the BKL by default. Given that -rc2 is
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> ?Just for info, UDF BKL removal patches seem to work fine but I want to
> give them some final SMP testing on Monday before pushing them to -next.
> I'm not sure how much people hurry with disabling the lock so if I should
> push them ASAP or wh
