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

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 19:44:42 EST

Next message: Matthew Dharm: "Re: [RFC] Flat /lib/modules/`uname -r`"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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

> 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.

Point taken, but I still want to look who calls them and how many PFs have
non-default stuff in the first place. E.g. ->mmap() just looks wrong. Oh,
well...

-
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: Matthew Dharm: "Re: [RFC] Flat /lib/modules/`uname -r`"
Previous message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Next in thread: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: willy@thepuffingroup.com: "Re: [PATCH] f_op->poll() without lock_kernel()"
Reply: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru: "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