[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100328201516.GE5116@nowhere>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:15:17 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, 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>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:05:50PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > General thoughts:
> >
> > ".llseek = NULL," so far meant "do the Right Thing on lseek() and
> > friends, as far as the fs core can tell". Shouldn't we keep it that
> > way? It's as close to other ".method = NULL," as it can get, which
> > either mean "silently skip this method if it doesn't matter" (e.g.
> > .flush) or "fail attempts to use this method with a fitting errno" (e.g.
> > .write).
>
> My series changes the default from 'default_llseek' to 'generic_file_llseek',
> which is almost identical, except for taking the inode mutex instead of the
> BKL.
What if another file operation changes the file pointer while holding the bkl?
You're not protected anymore in this case.
--
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