From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265856AbUACBJf (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:09:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265865AbUACBJf (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:09:35 -0500 Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net ([64.164.98.8]:41406 "EHLO mta7.pltn13.pbi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265856AbUACBJc (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 20:09:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:09:09 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Bill Davidsen , Manfred Spraul , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] use rcu for fasync_lock Message-ID: <20040103010909.GI1882@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Jamie Lokier , Bill Davidsen , Manfred Spraul , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <3FE492EF.2090202@colorfullife.com> <20031221113640.GF3438@mail.shareable.org> <3FE594D0.8000807@colorfullife.com> <20031221141456.GI3438@mail.shareable.org> <3FF5DF59.3090905@tmr.com> <20040102224150.GA5864@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040102224150.GA5864@mail.shareable.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:41:50PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > The best way is to maintain poll state in each "struct file". The > order of complexity for the bitmap scan is still significant, but > ->poll calls are limited to the number of transitions which actually > happen. What's the drawback to this approach? Where is the poll state kept now? > I think somebody, maybe Richard Gooch, has a patch to do this that's > several years old by now. Why wasn't it merged? Implementation issues?