Re: [patch-2.4.0-test5] microcode_release needs no BKL.

• Next message: Andre Hedrick: "RE: Castlewood ORB drive"
• Previous message: Eli Carter: "[RFD] buffer cache and block devices"
• In reply to: Matti Aarnio: "Re: [patch-2.4.0-test5] microcode_release needs no BKL."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> /* this is so trivial we don't need to lock_kernel() here */

Ok, that is much better. Linus, here is an improved patch:

--- linux/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c Fri Jul 14 20:52:14 2000
+++ work/arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c Fri Jul 28 17:25:03 2000
@@ -145,11 +145,10 @@
         return 0;
 }
 
+/* our specific f_op->release() method needs no locking */
 static int microcode_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
- lock_kernel();
         clear_bit(MICROCODE_IS_OPEN, &microcode_status);
- unlock_kernel();
         return 0;
 }
 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Andre Hedrick: "RE: Castlewood ORB drive"
• Previous message: Eli Carter: "[RFD] buffer cache and block devices"
• In reply to: Matti Aarnio: "Re: [patch-2.4.0-test5] microcode_release needs no BKL."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST