Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:01:45 -0700 | From | Jonathan Corbet <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325 |
| |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:54:04 +0100 Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> The state needs to be protected while the per driver ->fasync callback > runs, otherwise the bit can get out of sync with what the driver > thinks it is. > > Mind you imho the best way would be to move the bit manipulation for > that into the drivers, but that would require to change them all.
You know, I'm not sure why I didn't look into that. Do we want drivers reaching directly into struct file and making changes? Maybe a helper would be better. Hmm, maybe we could call it fasync_helper() and it could just do the right thing? Will investigate further...
jon
| |