On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Russell King wrote:
| On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:30:03AM +0000, John Bradford wrote:
| > > > Woah! Hm, this is going to cause lots of problems in drivers that have
| > > > been assuming that the BKL is grabbed during module unload, and during
| > > > open(). Hm, time to just fallback on the argument, "module unloading is
| > > > unsafe" :(
| > >
| > > Note that its the same in 2.4 as well. iirc, the BKL was removed from
| > > module loading/unloading sometime in the 2.3 timeline.
| >
| > Surely no recent code should be making that assumption anyway - the
| > BKL is being removed all over the place.
|
| The TTY layer isn't "recent code", its "very old code", and (IMO)
| removing the BKL from the TTY layer is a far from trivial matter.
|
| I believe at this point in the 2.5 cycle, we should not be looking
| to remove the BKL. We should be looking to fix the problems we know
| about. That basically means:
|
| - module refcounting
| - interrupt races
| - any other races (eg, tty_register_driver / tty_unregister_driver)
such as in http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54
-- ~Randy- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:54 EST