On 05/19/2010 11:08 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:02:04AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 05/19/2010 10:24 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> * generate kernel reactions
>>> */
>>> -static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp,
>>> +static int autofs_root_ioctl_unlocked(struct inode *inode, struct file
>>> *filp,
>>> unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> {
>>> struct autofs_sb_info *sbi = autofs_sbi(inode->i_sb);
>>> @@ -579,3 +579,16 @@ static int autofs_root_ioctl(struct inode *inode,
>>> struct file *filp,
>>> return -ENOSYS;
>>> }
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>>> + unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
>>> +{
>>
>> The choice of naming here seems reverse in my opinion.
>
>
> Oh, why?
>
> The function that holds the bkl calls its unlocked version.
>
But it's not ... it is locked at that point. It's not lock*ing*, but it
is not *unlocked*, either. Furthermore, it is directly contradicting
the naming scheme of the ops structure.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
