Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I disagree, it's a performance cost. It's a lot easier to make remove_proc_entry() a might_sleep().. (I'm surprised it isn't already btw given that it's vfs related and the vfs is mostly semaphore based)
Well enough. But to my understanding using spin_lock implies that we can _prove_ the lock won't be taken in softirq context, and that we will be able to prevent new such paths to be introduced in the future. I wonder if that's possible for this lock.
Regards, Martin -- Martin Wilck Phone: +49 5251 8 15113 Fujitsu Siemens Computers Fax: +49 5251 8 20409 Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring 1 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] D-33106 Paderborn http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/primergy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
