[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201004011050.42871.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 10:50:42 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
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
On Thursday 01 April 2010, Roland Dreier wrote:
> Looking at your tree, I see you have commit 753dd249 ("perf_event: use
> nonseekable_open") that does:
>
> > --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> > +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> > @@ -2515,6 +2515,8 @@ static int perf_fasync(int fd, struct file *filp, int on)
> > }
> >
> > static const struct file_operations perf_fops = {
> > + .open = nonseekable_open,
> > + .llseek = no_llseek,
> > .release = perf_release,
> > .read = perf_read,
> > .poll = perf_poll,
>
> But if I understand this correctly, the assignment to .open is at best
> useless -- these file_operations are only used via anon_inode_getfd()
> and so there is no possible path that can call the .open method. Or am
> I missing something?
You're right. I did not consider this.
Arnd
--
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