Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek

• Next message: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• In reply to: Robert Love: "[PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Next in thread: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> This patch pushes the BKL out of llseek() and into the individual llseek
> methods. For generic_file_llseek, I replaced it with the inode
> semaphore. The lock contention is noticeable even on 2-way systems.
> Since we simply push the BKL further down the call chain (its the llseek
> method's responsibilities now) we aren't doing anything hackish or
> unsafe.

A great idea, I wonder why someone didnt think of it before?

http://banyan.dlut.edu.cn/news/112801/0186.html

Wow someone did! And the patch basically matches yours including whitespace.

Robert _please_ attribute your sources more carefully.

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

• Next message: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• In reply to: Robert Love: "[PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Next in thread: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:13 EST