[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:34:25 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] pipe: Fixes [ver #2]
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> You are sure you won't want that for the notification queue cases? I
> guess they'll never want to "sync" part..
Actually, that's a good point, I do call it in post_one_notification() since I
have to hold the lock anyway. But, as you say, I'm not sure whether I need
the sync variant.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists