From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756646Ab0IIAVu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:21:50 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40164 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753194Ab0IIAVp (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:21:45 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201009082255.33035.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201009082255.33035.arnd@arndb.de> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:20:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] annotating the remaining BKL users To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , John Kacur , Sam Ravnborg , Jan Blunck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > I'd like to hear preferences for one approach or the other, > especially from Linus, so we can give this some better testing > in -next before the merge window. Hmm. I like your patch. It seems to have a good balance of "select BKL" (for architectures that require it for some reason) and "depends on BKL" (for individual modules). That said, I'd also like to see a comment _why_ the architectures in question depends on the BKL. Some of those look pretty historical (the sparc32 register window spill code? Does it _really_ need the BKL at all, or is that just a remnant of "let's get the BKL at each kernel entry"). So with the added rule that "each select BKL needs a quick comment why", I'd be happy with it. And maybe it would make people take a second look. Linus