linux-kernel - Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <adavdclz8sc.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:53:07 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jblunck@...e.de,
	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock

Hi Arnd,

Interesting work.  For the drivers/infiniband part, it seems maybe all
these drivers should be using no_llseek instead of default_llseek?  (or
is it better style to use nonseekable_open()?)  Certainly as far as I
can tell, nothing in drivers/infiniband pays any attention to f_pos.

Also, is there a reason why you add "#include <linux/smp_lock.h>" to all
the files where you also do ".llseek  = default_llseek"?

In any case I can at least take care of the llseek stuff for 2.6.35.

 - R.
-- 
Roland Dreier  <rolandd@...co.com>
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--
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/