Is there a reason for the BKL to be used in tiglusb_release()? Are you
worried about a race between open and release, or were you just
following examples from other code?
I'm sure we can remove it safely. We might need another lock, but it
won't be much.
-- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com--------------030707070207000702040005 Content-Type: text/plain; name="tiglusb-bkl_remove-2.5.8-pre1.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="tiglusb-bkl_remove-2.5.8-pre1.patch"
--- linux-2.5.8-pre1-clean/drivers/usb/tiglusb.c Thu Apr 4 08:58:26 2002 +++ linux/drivers/usb/tiglusb.c Thu Apr 4 16:29:31 2002 @@ -128,7 +128,6 @@ { ptiglusb_t s = (ptiglusb_t) file->private_data; - lock_kernel (); down (&s->mutex); s->state = _stopped; up (&s->mutex); @@ -139,7 +138,6 @@ wake_up (&s->remove_ok); s->opened = 0; - unlock_kernel (); return 0; }
--------------030707070207000702040005--
- 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/