[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100604083818.GA9987@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 04:38:18 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] fs: cleanup files_lock
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:43:08PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Lock tty_files with a new spinlock, tty_files_lock; provide helpers to
> manipulate the per-sb files list; unexport the files_lock spinlock.
I'm still not entirely happy with this. You keep making the tty a
special case by removing it from the files per-sb files list while
nothing else in the system is removed from it.
Thinks would be much better if you could untangle the tty code from
abuse of file->f_u.fu_list entirely. And from a naive look at the
tty code that actually seems pretty easy. file->private for ttys
currently directly points to the tty struct. If you add a tty_private
there which points back to the file, the tty and contains a list_head
the open files in tty code tracking code can be completely divorced
from the per-sb file tracking. After that we can decide what to do
with the per-sb file tracking, where my favourite still is to get
rid of it entirely.
--
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