Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I disagree, it's a performance cost.
It's a lot easier to make remove_proc_entry() a might_sleep().. (I'm
surprised it isn't already btw given that it's vfs related and the vfs
is mostly semaphore based)
Well enough. But to my understanding using spin_lock implies that we can
_prove_ the lock won't be taken in softirq context, and that we will be
able to prevent new such paths to be introduced in the future. I wonder
if that's possible for this lock.
Regards,
Martin
--
Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113
Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409
Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:[email protected]
D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |