On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:41 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> 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.
doing anything with files implies having a defined usercontext really,
and generally sleeping as well. So think this is quite safe.
-
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]
| |
 |