Re: [PATCH] [2/11] Add unlocked_fasync

From: Andi Kleen
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 14:31:40 EST

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I guess my one concern with this mirrors what other people have said:
> might not it be better to just push the BKL down into the fasync()
> implementations and avoid adding yet another file operation? A quick
> grep shows 43 drivers defining fasync() functions - and many of those
> use the same one. fs/ has a few more. Obnoxious but doable, unless
> there's something I'm missing?

See my reply to Arjan. While for complicated stuff pushing down first
is better, fasync is not that complicated and I think my strategy
with the new entry point, with the old one going away is better in this


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at