Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:42:10 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8 |
| |
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > > True, but... I can easily see the situation when ->foo() and ->bar() > both call a helper function which needs BKL for a small piece of code.
I'd hope that we can fix the small helper functions to not need BKL - there are already many circumstances where you can't use the BKL anyway (ie you already hold a spinlock - I'd really like to have the rule that the BKL is the "outermost" of all spinlocks, as we could in theory some day use it as a point to schedule away on BKL contention).
> ObUnrelated: fs/super.c is getting to the point where it naturally > falls into two files - one that deals with mount cache and all things > vfsmount-related, mount tree manipulations, etc. and another that deals > with superblocks. Mind if I split the thing?
Sure. As long as there is some sane naming and not too many new non-static functions. Maybe just "fs/mount.c" for the vfsmount caches etc.
Linus
- 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/
|  |