From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:21:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20090122222141.4a9501e1@tpl> References: <20090115153211.663df310@bike.lwn.net> <20090122065104.2787df2d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090122160935.GI15750@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090122160935.GI15750-qrUzlfsMFqo/4alezvVtWx2eb7JE58TQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, andi-Vw/NltI1exuRpAAqCnN02g@public.gmane.org, viro-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org, oleg-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, alan-qBU/x9rampVanCEyBjwyrvXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:09:35 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > > OK, replacing a lock_kernel() with a spin_lock(&global_lock) is > > pretty straightforwad. But it's really really sad. It basically > > leaves a great big FIXME in there. It'd be better to fix it. > > Also it might be that it's even worse than the BKL. I don't quite see how now. Like the BKL, it's a spinlock. > It would still require a bitlock because some state in the low > level fasync needs to be protected. > > Oleg has a proposal to do this using a flag bit which seemed > reasonable to me. I didn't see a reason to add a one-off custom locking regime for such a non-hot-path situation. But it would certainly work; if we want to go that way I'll not fight it. jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html