willy@thepuffingroup.com wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 06:40:01PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote: > > I'll try to write a patch [but not this week]: > > > > fasync_helper() uses cli() for the synchronization, and I have some > > doubts that this is really SMP safe: > > I'm not using fasync_helper(); the implementation of something remarkably > similar in net/socket.c doesn't use the cli-style locking (presumably > because it has really quite nasty locking requirements due to softnet). > I think for _those_ things, we should use a per-inode lock (i_sem could > perhaps be abused for this purpose). >
a new per-inode lock would enlarge the inode structure by another 4
bytes, I'd like to avoid that.
We cannot use i_sem, kill_fasync is called from irq (bh?) context.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/