On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:41:44PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:59PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > We do this by adding a new fcntl lock command: FL_CANCELLK. Some day this
> > might also be made available to userspace applications that could benefit
> > from
> > an asynchronous locking api.
>
> Should we really add more and more subcases to ->lock that probably don't
> share implementation code? I'd much prefer adding different operations.
That'd be OK. We considered both--
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=116616992004056&w=2
--but chose a new ->lock case just because that might provide a cleaner
mapping to the userspace interface if we ended up doing that some day.
Is there any hard reason why it wouldn't work?
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
