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

From: Bernd Petrovitsch
Date: Fri Jan 23 2009 - 05:47:20 EST

On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 07:15 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I have to agree with Christoph. The priority here is breaking down the
> > BKL and document all the things being protected by it and we've got a
> > reasonably obvious patch in that direction. Meanwhile, there's not
> > currently a pressing demand to make fasync in particular scale that I'm
> > aware of.
> The classic case is a high throughput network server that uses async
> sockets. It has to call F_SETFL on each new socket it opens.

Am I the only one missing an (additional) socket()-like sys-call with an
additional "flags" argument (somewhat similar to open())?
O_NONBLOCK is another flag that may be set quite often/regularly (at
least in my small world).

Firmix Software GmbH
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services

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