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

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 16:06:48 EST

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:30:06 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:28:43 +0200 (CEST)
> > Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Add a new fops entry point to allow fasync without BKL.
> >
> > I (again) really don't like having another entry point for this...
> > it'll stay around forever rather than doing this as one step and
> > move on.
> Yes the goal is for it staying around forever, correct. And ->fasync()
> will go instead.
> Advantage is that out of tree drivers will be compile broken which I
> consider an advantage. Yes I know Linus said earlier that's not
> important to him, but in this case my standards are higher than his.

I'd say it's just different standards.
My concern is that the new API as long lived is ugly and not the right
thing. I assume Linus and others have similar concerns, and weigh that
over the "some obscure out of tree driver might break".
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