J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes. I need to get the server lock first, before going to the VFS locking
> > routines.
>
> That doesn't really answer the question. The NFS client has similar
> requirements, but it doesn't have to duplicate the per-inode lists of
> granted locks,
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:35:32AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > --without having tried to understand how they're actually used, these
> > data structures (like the pending_locks and granted_locks lists) seem to
> > duplicate stuff that's already ke
J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --without having tried to understand how they're actually used, these
> data structures (like the pending_locks and granted_locks lists) seem to
> duplicate stuff that's already kept in fs/locks.c. Is there a reason
> they're required?
Yes. I need to
One more vague question I had while skimming the previous version--
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 03:54:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> +static void afs_grant_locks(struct afs_vnode *vnode, struct file_lock *fl)
> +{
> + struct file_lock *p, *_p;
> +
> + list_move_tail(&fl->fl_u.afs.link, &vn
Implement file locking for AFS.
[try #2]:
(*) Start the lock manager thread under a mutex to avoid a race.
(*) Made the locking non-fair: New readlocks will jump pending writelocks if
there's a readlock currently granted on a file. This makes the behaviour
similar to Linux's VFS loc
