Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

Matt Mackall
2009-01-28T18:15:48Z

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:55 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > If others disagree, and using bitops is not an idea which will fly, I'd
> > sure like to know sooner rather than later.
>
> There are more than enough use cases that have large numbers of open
> files (e.g. various high-end network servers). While it might not be
> as sewer as for inodes I think it's really bad idea to do it for no
> reason.

Maybe we can just demote f_ep_lock to f_lock and share it?

Or extend flags and have two independent bitlocks in it. This actually
shrinks struct_file for most users.

--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux