On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:12:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) perhaps?
>
> Makes sense to me. Testing....
So I found a buglet in the patch: the
NOTE! It is very important that the FASYNC flag always
match the state "is the filp on a fasync list".
comment should be moved to be associated with "fasync_insert_entry()"
rather than "fasync_add_entry()", since it's the insert-entry thing
that does the actual FASYNC flag handling.
But that incorrect comment placement shouldn't affect testing, obviously ;)
Btw, who is going to collect these things assuming it passes testing?
Arnd? You? I'll happily sign off on the fasync patch (with the comment
movement) assuming it tests out ok, but there's all the other patches
too that have been passed around. I really do want to get this into
the merge window, because it would be a big shame if we couldn't
effectively get rid of the BKL now just because of these kinds of
smallish final details, so I'm just checking who wants to step up to
the plate to collect it all together and make sure I have it?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
