willy@thepuffingroup.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 06:40:01PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > I'll try to write a patch [but not this week]:
> >
> > fasync_helper() uses cli() for the synchronization, and I have some
> > doubts that this is really SMP safe:
>
> I'm not using fasync_helper(); the implementation of something remarkably
> similar in net/socket.c doesn't use the cli-style locking (presumably
> because it has really quite nasty locking requirements due to softnet).
> I think for _those_ things, we should use a per-inode lock (i_sem could
> perhaps be abused for this purpose).
>
a new per-inode lock would enlarge the inode structure by another 4
bytes, I'd like to avoid that.
We cannot use i_sem, kill_fasync is called from irq (bh?) context.
-- Manfred- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 21:00:11 EST