From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:55:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:54:52 -0400 Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk ([130.88.200.94]:7686 "EHLO probity.mcc.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:54:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 04:55:07 +0100 From: John Levon To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: 2.4 daemonize() Message-ID: <20010912045507.B4734@compsoc.man.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i X-Url: http://www.movement.uklinux.net/ X-Record: Truant - Neither Work Nor Leisure X-Toppers: N/A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org examples in drivers/ seem undecided on whether the BKL is necessary during the initial daemonize() and setup of a kernel thread. must the lock be taken or not ? thanks john -- "Since when would the sizeof any kind of pointer be zero ? Have you built a zero-bit CPU ?" - Jeffrey Turner