On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:09:35 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > OK, replacing a lock_kernel() with a spin_lock(&global_lock) is > > pretty straightforwad. But it's really really sad. It basically > > leaves a great big FIXME in there. It'd be better to fix it. > > Also it might be that it's even worse than the BKL. I don't quite see how now. Like the BKL, it's a spinlock. > It would still require a bitlock because some state in the low > level fasync needs to be protected. > > Oleg has a proposal to do this using a flag bit which seemed > reasonable to me. I didn't see a reason to add a one-off custom locking regime for such a non-hot-path situation. But it would certainly work; if we want to go that way I'll not fight it. jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
