Re: [PATCH] IB/uverbs: BKL is not needed for ib_uverbs_open()

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...>, Andi Kleen <andi@...>, <general@...>
Date: Monday, June 30, 2008 - 6:55 pm

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:43:20 -0700
Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com> wrote:


That's the general idea: audit the code where the BKL appears and
remove it when it's safe to do so.  It's always an appropriate time;
the only question is whether you think this change is good to go into
the tree for 2.6.27, or whether it should hang out in linux-next for
one more cycle.  I would assume that the extra time would not be
necessary.

Thanks,

jon
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
The state of the BKL-removal tree, Jonathan Corbet, (Fri Jun 27, 11:54 am)
[PATCH] IB/uverbs: BKL is not needed for ib_uverbs_open(), Roland Dreier, (Fri Jun 27, 5:43 pm)
Re: [PATCH] IB/uverbs: BKL is not needed for ib_uverbs_open(), Jonathan Corbet, (Mon Jun 30, 6:55 pm)
Re: The state of the BKL-removal tree, Mike Frysinger, (Fri Jun 27, 11:56 am)