On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 08:41 +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > 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.
doing anything with files implies having a defined usercontext really, and generally sleeping as well. So think this is quite safe. - 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/
