Hi,
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Nope. I missed that one. Something like "The Little Mainfraime that
> could?"
It was "The Y2K bug - the last day" by some Marc.
> > So the BKL isn't wrong here, but incorrectly used?
>
> Not even incorrect, but badly used. But, this was probably another
> VFS push.
The most correct would be to lock the struct file in any way so it can't
be used while I eat it. But I guess that's efficient locking vs. space,
isn't it? What would happen if we had a locking field on every struct?!
> > Is it really okay to "lock the whole kernel" because of one struct file?
> > This brings us back to spinlocks...
>
> Don't think of it as locking the kernel, that isn't really what it
> does anymore. You really need to think of it as a special spinlock.
We should rename it to something that actually tells you what it does.
BTW, when was lock_kernel()? It must be really old if it still locked the
whole kernel.
Regards,
Thunder
-- (Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode) ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Version: 3.12 GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$ N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G e++++ h* r--- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST