On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:47:46AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > BKL was not really needed, just came from earlier push downs.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > The only part that's a bit dodgy is the lseek function. Would
> > need another lock or atomic access to fpos on 32bit?
> > Better to have a libfs lseek
> 
> It doesn't matter.  Anyone who tries to do lseeks on this file 
> from two different threads, simultaneously, deserves what they get.
> 
> > @@ -539,11 +534,11 @@ static loff_t uhci_debug_lseek(struct file *file, loff_t off, int whence)
> >  		new = file->f_pos + off;
> >  		break;
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	/* XXX: Can size shrink? */
> >  	if (new < 0 || new > up->size) {
> > -		unlock_kernel();
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> > -	unlock_kernel();
> >  	return (file->f_pos = new);
> >  }
> 
> This comment isn't needed; the size cannot change after the file has 
> been opened.

I've removed the comment in the version I just committed.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/