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

[David Daney]

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/