From d4e935bd67ca05db4119b67801d9ece6ae139f05 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 15:58:33 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] The rpc server does not require that service threads take the BKL. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust --- fs/nfs/callback.c | 12 ------------ 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/callback.c b/fs/nfs/callback.c index 293fa05..e66ec5d 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/callback.c +++ b/fs/nfs/callback.c @@ -78,11 +78,6 @@ nfs4_callback_svc(void *vrqstp) set_freezable(); - /* - * FIXME: do we really need to run this under the BKL? If so, please - * add a comment about what it's intended to protect. - */ - lock_kernel(); while (!kthread_should_stop()) { /* * Listen for a request on the socket @@ -104,7 +99,6 @@ nfs4_callback_svc(void *vrqstp) preverr = err; svc_process(rqstp); } - unlock_kernel(); return 0; } @@ -160,11 +154,6 @@ nfs41_callback_svc(void *vrqstp) set_freezable(); - /* - * FIXME: do we really need to run this under the BKL? If so, please - * add a comment about what it's intended to protect. - */ - lock_kernel(); while (!kthread_should_stop()) { prepare_to_wait(&serv->sv_cb_waitq, &wq, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); spin_lock_bh(&serv->sv_cb_lock); @@ -183,7 +172,6 @@ nfs41_callback_svc(void *vrqstp) } finish_wait(&serv->sv_cb_waitq, &wq); } - unlock_kernel(); return 0; } -- 1.8.2.3