[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)
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-

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:0.485 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site