Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 19:28:53 EST

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Problems umounting w/ pre5/pre6"
Previous message: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net: "Re: Session IDs & LUID point to consider."
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, David S. Miller wrote:

> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
>
> BTW, IWBNI the same would be done for proto/proto_ops. Dave, would
> you accept the net/*/* side of such patch? I can send it in an hour
> or so.
>
> I highly approve of this, please just do it.

Dave, what's up with sock_no_foo() stuff? Mind if I'll replace (some
of?) them with NULLs, taking the tests into net/socket.c?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Problems umounting w/ pre5/pre6"
Previous message: allbery@kf8nh.apk.net: "Re: Session IDs & LUID point to consider."
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST