J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 01:09:51PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>>> This is the next step in fs/locks.c cleanup before turning >>>> it into using the struct pid *. >>>> >>>> This time I found, that there are some places that do a >>>> similar thing - they try to apply a lock on a file and go >>>> to sleep on error till the blocker exits. >>>> >>>> All these places can be easily consolidated, saving 28 >>>> lines of code and more than 600 bytes from the .text, >>>> but there is one minor note. >>> I'm not opposed to consolidating this code, but would it be possible to >>> do so in a more straightforward way, without passing in a callback >>> function? E.g. a single __posix_lock_file_wait that just took an inode >>> instead of a filp and called __posix_lock_file() could be called from >>> both posix_lock_file_wait() and locks_mandatory_locked, right? >> Well, the locks_mandatory_area() has to check for inode mode change >> in my lock callback, the fcntl_setlk() has to call the vfs_lock_file, >> and flock_lock_file_wait() has to call the flock_lock_file, so >> I don't see the ways of having one routine to lock the file. >> >> If you don't mind, I'd port the patch with this approach (with the >> "trylock" callback) on the latest Andrew's tree. > > OK.
:) Thanks. >>>> The locks_mandatory_area() code becomes a bit different >>>> after this patch - it no longer checks for the inode's >>>> permissions change. Nevertheless, this check is useless >>>> without my another patch that wakes the waiter up in the >>>> notify_change(), which is not considered to be useful for >>>> now. >>> OK. Might be better to submit this as a separate patch, though. >> This one is already accepted, but I have just noticed that >> the check for __mandatory_lock() in wait_event_interruptible >> is ambiguous :( > > I'm not sure what you mean here.... Do you have a fix? Well, I do, but this patch is already dropped from -mm. > --b. > - 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/
