Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()

From: David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 19:31:13 EST

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Problems umounting w/ pre5/pre6"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:28:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>

On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, David S. Miller wrote:

> I highly approve of this, please just do it.

Dave, what's up with sock_no_foo() stuff? Mind if I'll replace (some
of?) them with NULLs, taking the tests into net/socket.c?

Please no, the whole point of the sock_no_*() stuff was to _REMOVE_
the tests from the socket.c code.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com

-
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/

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Previous message: Alexander Viro: "Re: Problems umounting w/ pre5/pre6"
In reply to: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:20 EST