Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [patch] For 2.4: syscall revoke. | Date | Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:56:26 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> 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; wake_up(&fop_wait); }
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |