From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932332AbYETSbk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 14:31:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757019AbYETSb3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 14:31:29 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:46055 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752400AbYETSb2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 May 2008 14:31:28 -0400 Message-ID: <483318FD.5040506@firstfloor.org> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 20:31:25 +0200 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Corbet CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2/11] Add unlocked_fasync References: <27468.1211299125@vena.lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <27468.1211299125@vena.lwn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Corbet wrote: > I guess my one concern with this mirrors what other people have said: > might not it be better to just push the BKL down into the fasync() > implementations and avoid adding yet another file operation? A quick > grep shows 43 drivers defining fasync() functions - and many of those > use the same one. fs/ has a few more. Obnoxious but doable, unless > there's something I'm missing? See my reply to Arjan. While for complicated stuff pushing down first is better, fasync is not that complicated and I think my strategy with the new entry point, with the old one going away is better in this case. -Andi