[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090204063407.611d5436@bike.lwn.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:34:07 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mpm@...enic.com,
dada1@...mosbay.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, oleg@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
davidel@...ilserver.org, davem@...emloft.net,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Convert epoll to a bitlock
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:20:18 +1100
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 February 2009 18:13:20 Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:19:31PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > 1) Use i_lock to protect accesses to f_flags. This would enable
> > > some BKL usage to be removed, but would not fix fasync.
> >
> > What about just turning f_ep_lock into f_lock and using it?
>
> Ah, yes I was going to say that too, but I confused i_lock with
> i_mutex because it sounded like Jon needed a sleeping lock here?
Sigh, obviously that's what I should do. Sorry for being so dense.
Consider it done.
[About sleeping locks: *if* one puts a lock around ->fasync(), it needs
to be a sleeping lock. But moving FASYNC bit handling down gets rid of
the need to do that, so f_lock would be fine.]
Thanks,
jon
--
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