Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:13:47 -0600 |
| |
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 12:55 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > If others disagree, and using bitops is not an idea which will fly, I'd > > sure like to know sooner rather than later. > > There are more than enough use cases that have large numbers of open > files (e.g. various high-end network servers). While it might not be > as sewer as for inodes I think it's really bad idea to do it for no > reason.
Maybe we can just demote f_ep_lock to f_lock and share it?
Or extend flags and have two independent bitlocks in it. This actually shrinks struct_file for most users.
-- http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
| |