Vous m'avez dit récemment :

quoted text
> 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 <mathieu.segaud@regala.cx>
>
> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
> which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL already held.
>
> This is allowed with the BKL, but really bad style that you should
> avoid. I assume the ext3 and ext4dev versions of your patch have
> the same issue, but I didn't check in detail.

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 :)

-- 
Mathieu

ps: I just posted a set of patches for reiserfs that may suffer the
same ugly style
--
unsubscribe notice
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/