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

From: David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 22:57:09 EST

Next message: Keith Owens: "2.3.99-pre6-5 usb_device_poll warning"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:48:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>

> I think we don't want to keep it.

   There you go, then. ->fcntl() removed, call replaced with
   sock_no_fcntl(), proto_ops and proto switched to new syntax. See if
   it looks sane for you.

This looks perfectly fine.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

-
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: Keith Owens: "2.3.99-pre6-5 usb_device_poll warning"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "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