On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 18:20:18 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 04 February 2009 18:13:20 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:19:31PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > 1) Use i_lock to protect accesses to f_flags. This would enable > > > some BKL usage to be removed, but would not fix fasync. > > > > What about just turning f_ep_lock into f_lock and using it? > > Ah, yes I was going to say that too, but I confused i_lock with > i_mutex because it sounded like Jon needed a sleeping lock here? Sigh, obviously that's what I should do. Sorry for being so dense. Consider it done. [About sleeping locks: *if* one puts a lock around ->fasync(), it needs to be a sleeping lock. But moving FASYNC bit handling down gets rid of the need to do that, so f_lock would be fine.] Thanks, 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
