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. > >> 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? --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/
