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

From: David Daney
Date: Wed Jan 28 2009 - 13:15:29 EST

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:14:39AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
I didn't send the actual patch. The idea is,

can't we use O_LOCK_FLAGS bit? I agree, it is a bit ugly,
and I won't insist if you don't like is.

static inline int try_lock_f_flags(struct file *file)
return !test_and_set_bit(O_LOCK_FLAGS, file->f_flags);

->f_flags is an unsigned int and the bit macros need an unsigned long.
Increasing the size of struct file for this is probably a bad idea.

Could that be seen as a deficiency in the bit macros?

Could we modify them so that they worked on unsigned int as well? I know we could for some architectures.

David Daney
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