Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote:

quoted text
> Is the plan that we have a pure "push the BKL down" changeset merged,
> and then I can merge BKL removal patches for these places that never
> needed the BKL?  (I guess I can send you such a patch to base on top of
> your tree for when Linus pulls it?  Is 2.6.27 the plan?)  

If you're sure that this code doesn't need the BKL (and it kind of
looked that way to me), the preferred approach seems to be to put in a
comment to that effect so that it's clear that the code has been looked
at.  So sending me a patch which does this would be great.  Otherwise,
if you're willing to swear on top of a stack of Knuth output that the
BKL is not needed for specific open functions, I can revert my patch
back out and put in the comment - whichever you prefer.

jon
--
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/