On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:54:04 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The state needs to be protected while the per driver ->fasync callback > runs, otherwise the bit can get out of sync with what the driver > thinks it is. > > Mind you imho the best way would be to move the bit manipulation for > that into the drivers, but that would require to change them all. You know, I'm not sure why I didn't look into that. Do we want drivers reaching directly into struct file and making changes? Maybe a helper would be better. Hmm, maybe we could call it fasync_helper() and it could just do the right thing? Will investigate further... 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
