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

David Daney
2009-01-28T18:15:29Z

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:14:39AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> I didn't send the actual patch. The idea is,
>>
>> can't we use O_LOCK_FLAGS bit? I agree, it is a bit ugly,
>> and I won't insist if you don't like is.
>>
>> static inline int try_lock_f_flags(struct file *file)
>> {
>> return !test_and_set_bit(O_LOCK_FLAGS, file->f_flags);
>> }
>
> ->f_flags is an unsigned int and the bit macros need an unsigned long.
> Increasing the size of struct file for this is probably a bad idea.
>

Could that be seen as a deficiency in the bit macros?

Could we modify them so that they worked on unsigned int as well? I
know we could for some architectures.

David Daney