Commit:     b842e240f27678aa5d71611cddc8d17a93fb0caf
Parent:     bbf25010f1a6b761914430f5fca081ec8c7accd1
Author:     J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AuthorDate: Thu May 10 19:02:07 2007 -0400
Committer:  J. Bruce Fields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CommitDate: Tue Oct 9 18:32:45 2007 -0400

    locks: reverse order of posix_locks_conflict() arguments
    The first argument to posix_locks_conflict() is meant to be a lock request,
    and the second a lock from an inode's lock request.  It doesn't really
    make a difference which order you call them in, since the only
    asymmetric test in posix_lock_conflict() is the check whether the second
    argument is a posix lock--and every caller already does that check for
    some reason.
    But may as well fix posix_test_lock() to call posix_locks_conflict()
    with the arguments in the same order as everywhere else.
    Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 fs/locks.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index c795eaa..51bae62 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
        for (cfl = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_flock; cfl; cfl = 
cfl->fl_next) {
                if (!IS_POSIX(cfl))
-               if (posix_locks_conflict(cfl, fl))
+               if (posix_locks_conflict(fl, cfl))
        if (cfl)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git-commits-head" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to