* Vivek Goyal (vgo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 06:38:31PM -0500, Masayoshi Mizuma wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > +/* Should be called with inode->plock_mutex held */
> > > +static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo,
> > > + struct lo_inode
> > > *inode,
> > > + uint64_t
> > > lock_owner,
> > > + pid_t pid, int
> > > *err)
> > > +{
> > > + struct lo_inode_plock *plock;
> > > + char procname[64];
> > > + int fd;
> > > +
> > > + plock =
> > > + g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks,
> > > GUINT_TO_POINTER(lock_owner));
> > > +
> > > + if (plock) {
> > > + return plock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + plock = malloc(sizeof(struct lo_inode_plock));
> > > + if (!plock) {
> > > + *err = ENOMEM;
> > > + return NULL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Open another instance of file which can be used for ofd locks. */
> > > + sprintf(procname, "%i", inode->fd);
> > > +
> > > + /* TODO: What if file is not writable? */
> > > + fd = openat(lo->proc_self_fd, procname, O_RDWR);
> > > + if (fd == -1) {
> >
> > > + *err = -errno;
> >
> > I think the errno is positive value, so the minus isn't needed?
> >
> > *err = errno;
>
> That's sounds right. Thanks.
>
> David, will you be able to do this tweak in your tree or you want me to
> send a separate fix patch.
Fixed in my tree.
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
> >
> > Otherwise looks good to me.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Masayoshi Mizuma <m.miz...@jp.fujitsu.com>
Thanks!
Dave
> > Thanks,
> > Masa
> >
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
