> If all goes well, 2.6.37 will have a configuration option which makes BKL-free builds possible. That's a huge step forward, even if the BKL still exists in most stock kernels.
Suppose the BKL has just become optional. As a *user*, suppose I do not use *any* module or code using the BKL. Would it make any difference to me to run a BKL-free kernel compared to a stock kernel compiled with most features, including an unused BKL?
> The Amiga FFS, for example, cannot have received much maintenance in recent times, and seems unlikely to have a lot of users.
> [...] [...] [...]
> In some cases, the remaining BKL-using code might be shifted over to the staging tree and eventually removed entirely if it is not fixed up.
In such cases isn't it better to just let this suboptimal but tested and working code depend forever on an optional BKL? The few remaining users of such old code might still enjoy it without having the resources to free it from the BKL.