Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:54:04 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The state needs to be protected while the per driver ->fasync callback
> runs, otherwise the bit can get out of sync with what the driver
> thinks it is.
> 
> Mind you imho the best way would be to move the bit manipulation for
> that into the drivers, but that would require to change them all.

You know, I'm not sure why I didn't look into that.  Do we want drivers
reaching directly into struct file and making changes?  Maybe a helper
would be better.  Hmm, maybe we could call it fasync_helper() and it
could just do the right thing?  Will investigate further...

jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/