[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4864A960.7010807@firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:48:32 +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 (take 2)
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:12:51 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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@...ux.intel.com>
-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