[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: BKL removal

    On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Dave Hansen wrote:
    > Nope. I missed that one. Something like "The Little Mainfraime that
    > could?"

    It was "The Y2K bug - the last day" by some Marc.

    > > So the BKL isn't wrong here, but incorrectly used?
    > Not even incorrect, but badly used. But, this was probably another
    > VFS push.

    The most correct would be to lock the struct file in any way so it can't
    be used while I eat it. But I guess that's efficient locking vs. space,
    isn't it? What would happen if we had a locking field on every struct?!

    > > Is it really okay to "lock the whole kernel" because of one struct file?
    > > This brings us back to spinlocks...
    > Don't think of it as locking the kernel, that isn't really what it
    > does anymore. You really need to think of it as a special spinlock.

    We should rename it to something that actually tells you what it does.
    BTW, when was lock_kernel()? It must be really old if it still locked the
    whole kernel.

    (Use if you can't decode)
    ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
    Version: 3.12
    GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
    N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
    e++++ h* r--- y-
    ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.022 / U:0.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site