Hi Junxiao, On 10/19/2016 02:57 PM, Junxiao Bi wrote: > I had ever implemented generic recursive locking support, please check the > patch at > https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2015-December/011408.html > <https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2015-December/011408.html> , > the issue that locking and unlocking in different processes was considered. > But it was rejected by Mark as recursive locking is not allowed in > ocfs2/kernel . Yes, I can remember it. The different point is that I just want to have a function to check recursive locking than supporting recursive locking;-)
Honestly, I cannot understand your patch thoroughly until now. Back to that time, it's the complication of your patch that concerns me. Besides, looks like the "PR+EX" + "non-block" request cannot be handled well? >> The thrid one is to revert that problematic commit! It looks like >> get/set_acl() >> are always been called by other vfs callback like ocfs2_permission(). I think >> we can do this if it's true, right? Anyway, I'll try to work out if it's >> true;-) > Not sure whether get/set_acl() will be called directly by vfs. Even not now, > we can’t make sure that in the future. So revert it may be a little risky. > But if refactor is complicated, then this maybe the only way we can do. Agree. Let's investigate more into it;-) Thanks, Junxiao > > Thanks, > Junxiao. >> Hope for your input to solve this problem;-) >> >> Thanks, >> Eric >> > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
