On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> OK, having found the beginning of the thread, I understand what is being
> attempted, but... why the hell bother with FIFO in the first place? AFAICS,
> task_work_add() uses in VFS (final fput() and final mntput() alike)
> do not care about the FIFO at all.
>
> Sure, some out-of-tree mer^H^Hodule might rely on that. So what?
>
> IMO, unless we have a good in-tree reason for insisting on FIFO, dropping it
> is the most obvious solution...
I agree. We should just try that.
I'll apply Eric's patch from the beginning of this tree, and let's
just see if anybody ever notices.
Removing code and possibly fixing a latency issue sounds like a win-win.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
