[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190521192009.GK17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 20:20:09 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, jannh@...gle.com, fweimer@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
arnd@...db.de, shuah@...nel.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
ldv@...linux.org, miklos@...redi.hu, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] open: add close_range()
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:30:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> If we can live with close_from(int first) rather than close_range(), then this
> can perhaps be done a lot more efficiently by:
>
> new = alloc_fdtable(first);
> spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> old = files_fdtable(files);
> copy_fds(new, old, 0, first - 1);
> rcu_assign_pointer(files->fdt, new);
> spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> clear_fds(old, 0, first - 1);
> close_fdt_from(old, first);
> kfree_rcu(old);
I really hate to think how that would interact with POSIX locks...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists