[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <485C0133.3020708@firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:12:51 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] fasync() BKL pushdown
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:55:03 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>
>>> The majority of fasync() functions just call fasync_helper() with a
>>> pointer to an fasync_struct reachable from the file structure.
>>> Given that (1) the struct file will not go away while fasync() is
>>> running, and (2) the VFS-level fasync() stuff is protected with the
>>> Big Fasync Lock, I contend that these simple implementations have
>>> no need for the BKL.
>> Not necessarily true, they might require BKL still for fd live time
>> issues.
>
> Could you help me out a bit here? I'm even slower than usual when it
> comes to VFS stuff. As far as I can tell, the given file cannot go
> away during the call to fasync(), as sys_fcntl() holds a reference on
> it. Are you saying that something else can happen during that time?
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.
Anyways I did this auditing for the cases where I used unlocked_ioctl
[but I think I wanted to redo it because i wasn't 100% sure anymore]
and I haven't done it at all for the cases that weren't converted.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists