Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:40:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:40:34 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.93]:27396 "EHLO anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 05:40:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:40:16 +0000 From: Bob Dunlop To: Rusty Russell Cc: davem@redhat.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Moving fasync_struct into struct file? Message-ID: <20020219104016.A16542@xyzzy.org.uk> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from rusty@rustcorp.com.au on Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:00:31AM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tue, Feb 19, Rusty Russell wrote: > This means we need a move the "struct fasync_struct > fasync_list" into struct file (up from all the subsystems which use > it, eg. struct socket). > > See any problems with this? At first I thought I would clean up the drivers a little moving common code from the release routine. The release code is not called in the example you gave because of the fork, correct ? Then I realised what happens if several processes all request SIGIO notification on different descriptors. The driver still needs to keep a private list of all the processes registered with it. struct file should at best contain a pointer back to the relevant structure in the driver private list for cleanup ? -- Bob Dunlop - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/