* Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:

quoted text
> OK, since the previous announcement, I've revisited all of the open() 
> functions which didn't get lock_kernel() calls the first time around. 
> Alan pointed out that even a completely empty open() might, in fact, 
> need to acquire the BKL, so now they all do.  Hopefully, this 
> completes this work (at this level - there's plenty of down-pushing to 
> do within subsystems).

cool stuff! :-)

quoted text
> There's a new tree with this stuff:
> 
> 	git://git.lwn.net/linux-2.6.git bkl-removal
> 
> Stephen, might it be about time to pull this into linux-next and see 
> what explodes?
> 
> If others have BKL-removal patches which look like 2.6.27 material, 
> I'll happily collect them in this tree.

i'm wondering how this should best interact with the kill-the-BKL bits 
that attack it all from the infrastructure side. Your bits are the safer 
ones, so i guess i'll try to track your changes from my branch to 
increase testing of it all?

	Ingo
--
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/