Date:	Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:21:24 -0700
From:	Hans Reiser <hans@reiser.to>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [Announce] BKL shifting into drivers and filesystems - beware

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > * ->mmap() in file_operations, ->revalidate(), ->readlink() and
> > ->follow_link() in inode_operations and all methods in dentry_operations
> > are called without the BKL. Take yourself if you need it.
> 
> Is this true for drivers. If so the sound stuff will probably need work. Work
> Im not doing.
> 
> > * ->release() will be called without BKL. You need it - you take it.
> 
> You want it for 2.4 you fix the drivers.
> 
> This continual VFS redesign creep is going to far now. We'lll never get a
> 2.4 if we keep moving all the locking around.
> 
> Alan

I hope you understand why I think that adding reiserfs is a small disturbance
compared to continuing revisions of VFS.

I think that VFS/VM should stay stable for at least 6 weeks during which the FS
contributors are allowed to merge in contributions.

I do agree that these locks should come off, but maybe we should just admit that
2.4 isn't ready for even pretend code freeze.  Maybe we should announce code
freeze will be in three months, and VFS/VM code freeze will be in 6 weeks. 
Sorry, I'd like to see 2.4 ship in three months, but I am hearing people guess
that it won't ship this year, and if they are right maybe we will be best off
admitting it.

Viro, much thanks for sending us this email warning us of these changes, it
helps us a lot when we don't risk discovering changes in locking code by our
testing procedures.

Hans

-
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/