Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 04 Jul 2002 16:38:52 -0700 | From | Dave Hansen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] remove BKL from driverfs |
| |
CC'ing Al for comments...
Greg KH wrote: > bleah, a proliferation of a zillion little spinlocks all across the > kernel is not my idea of fun :(
A zillion locks each with a single purpose is a lot more fun than 1 lock with a zillion different uses.
> I don't know if a simple spinlock can help us here. Look at > driverfs_get_inode() and follow that into the vfs layer. Make sure all > of that is race safe (and isn't currently relying on the BKL.) I'll > defer to Al Viro's opinion about this, as I don't quite know all of the > side effects going on at this moment in time.
OK, I agree a simple spinlock is not the way to go because I now see the sleepable operations in there. But, I don't think driverfs_get_inode() needs any more locking. The inode that it references is freshly allocated and my only concern would be about access from the inode_in_use list. Maybe down()ing i_sem will provide a bit more protection, but unless the access through inode_in_use is already a problem, i_sem isn't needed. Any thoughts, Al?
-- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com
- 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/
| |