Re: [PATCH] [2/11] Add unlocked_fasync

[Andi Kleen]

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I guess my one concern with this mirrors what other people have said:
> might not it be better to just push the BKL down into the fasync()
> implementations and avoid adding yet another file operation?  A quick
> grep shows 43 drivers defining fasync() functions - and many of those
> use the same one.  fs/ has a few more.  Obnoxious but doable, unless
> there's something I'm missing?

See my reply to Arjan.  While for complicated stuff pushing down first
is better, fasync is not that complicated and I think my strategy
with the new entry point, with the old one going away is better in this
case.

-Andi

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