Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

Vous m'avez dit récemment : > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Mathieu SEGAUD wrote: >> yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add >> _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both >> extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl(). >> Any comments on such a strategy ?

Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

On Thursday 17 January 2008, Mathieu SEGAUD wrote: > yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add > _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both > extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl(). > Any comments on such a strategy ? thanks a lot for the reminder :) >

Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

Vous m'avez dit récemment : > Vous m'avez dit récemment : > >> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote: >>> >>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly >>> exposing BKL's uses. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice

Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

Vous m'avez dit récemment : > On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote: >> >> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly >> exposing BKL's uses. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(), > which

Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote: > > Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly > exposing BKL's uses. > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(), which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL