[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] For 2.4: syscall revoke.
> writer might be OK, but AFAICS there is nothing of that sort in the
> tree. We have such spinlocks, but I don't see how to apply that idea to
> semaphores. Besides, it ought to be small - every struct file will have to
> contain such beast.

It would mean a check when putting a file handle, which would be unpleasant
if not handled very carefully.

How about doing this in fput ?

if(IS_REVOKED(file) && file->f_ops != &revoked_ops)
file->f_ops = &revoked_ops;

that would mean that the ops change is done by the code paths that care about
the handle at the point it becomes unused. We could use a poll_table like
setup to handle the multi-fd wait if need be

How we make sure drivers return out of wait for event loops would need a bit
of thought but I think thats an unrelated problem.

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.081 / U:1.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site