![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I disagree, it's a performance cost. > It's a lot easier to make remove_proc_entry() a might_sleep().. (I'm > surprised it isn't already btw given that it's vfs related and the vfs > is mostly semaphore based) Well enough. But to my understanding using spin_lock implies that we can _prove_ the lock won't be taken in softirq context, and that we will be able to prevent new such paths to be introduced in the future. I wonder if that's possible for this lock. Regards, Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:Martin.Wilck@Fujitsu-Siemens.com D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-08-12 08:44 [W:0.330 / U:0.670 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||