Re: [PATCH, RFC] fasync() BKL pushdown (take 2)

[Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>]

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:12:51 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> 
>> Some devices do state change even when the reference count is > 0.
>> Would need to double check it's all ok with the fasync list.
> 
> OK, I've gone over all of the fasync() definitions again with an eye
> toward convincing myself that the fasync list would not get cleared,
> freed, or otherwise molested if fasync() runs without BKL protection.
> I focused especially on other code (open(), ioctl()) which might still
> run with the BKL.  The result was two more pushdowns in spots where I
> wasn't sure; chance are both are unnecessary.

Ok fine for me then. I haven't read it again in detail, but it sounds
good now.

I still think it would be better to somehow compile break external users,
but that would be only the icing on the cake.

Acked-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>

-Andi