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

From: Matti Aarnio (matti.aarnio@zmailer.org)
Date: Fri Jul 28 2000 - 11:00:20 EST


On Fri, Jul 28, 2000 at 04:56:26PM +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> But Matti... usually I agree with you but here you are making no sense.
> Why should driver-specific methods contain comments about what other
> driver-specific methods should or should not implement? The place for such
> comments is sys_close() or filp_close() or anywhere in VFS (e.g. next to
> declaration of struct file_operations but _definitely_ not in every single
> driver that implements a particular method.

        I am trying to think how a newcomer will browse sample
        systems, and wonder why some subsystem release() methods
        have those locks, and others don't... "Are there bugs ??"

        So perhaps:

        /* this is so trivial we don't need to lock_kernel() here */

        comment is what is needed at those places so that it will
        satisfy also the newcomers coming latter to wonder it..

...
> See what I mean?

        Yes I do.

> Regards,
> Tigran

/Matti Aarnio

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:29 EST