Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:05:50PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > General thoughts:
> > 
> > ".llseek = NULL," so far meant "do the Right Thing on lseek() and
> > friends, as far as the fs core can tell".  Shouldn't we keep it that
> > way?  It's as close to other ".method = NULL," as it can get, which
> > either mean "silently skip this method if it doesn't matter" (e.g.
> > .flush) or "fail attempts to use this method with a fitting errno" (e.g.
> > .write).
> 
> My series changes the default from 'default_llseek' to 'generic_file_llseek',
> which is almost identical, except for taking the inode mutex instead of the
> BKL. 


What if another file operation changes the file pointer while holding the bkl?
You're not protected anymore in this case.

--
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/