Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:02:41 +0200 | From | Jan Blunck <> | Subject | Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock |
| |
On Thu, Apr 08, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 08 April 2010 22:45:45 Jan Blunck wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 28, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > General thoughts: > > > > > > > > ".llseek = NULL," so far meant "do the Right Thing on lseek() and > > > > friends, as far as the fs core can tell". Shouldn't we keep it that > > > > way? It's as close to other ".method = NULL," as it can get, which > > > > either mean "silently skip this method if it doesn't matter" (e.g. > > > > .flush) or "fail attempts to use this method with a fitting errno" (e.g. > > > > .write). > > > > > > My series changes the default from 'default_llseek' to 'generic_file_llseek', > > > > That is not that easy. generic_file_llseek() is testing against 'offset < > > inode->i_sb->s_maxbytes'. This is not necessarily true when you think about > > directories with random offset cookies. I know that seeking on directories is > > stupid but don't blame me. > > Oh, I see. Would it work if we extend generic_file_llseek to only check s_maxbytes > if S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)))? >
Yes and maybe rename generic_file_llseek to generic_llseek.
Jan
> > > Yes, that also sounds like a good idea. I believe that Jan actually posted > > > a patch to do that at some point. > > > > Yes, it is in > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/jblunck/linux-2.6.git bkl/default-lseek > > > > There are some other patches in that branch that are not upstream yet. Mind to > > take them for your bkl-removal branch? > > Frederic is now collecting the new patches. Your default-lseek series looks > good to me, except for the obvious one that says 'FIXME' in the subject. > > Maybe Frederic can add your series except for that one as another branch to > get pulled into his kill-the-bkl master branch. > > Arnd
| |