On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:28:52 -0400
J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:14AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
In later patches, we're going to add a new lock_manager_operation to
finish setting up the lease while still holding the i_lock. To do
this, we'll
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:14AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
In later patches, we're going to add a new lock_manager_operation to
finish setting up the lease while still holding the i_lock. To do
this, we'll need to pass a little bit of info in the fcntl setlease
case (primarily an fasync
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:33:05 -0700
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:14AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
In later patches, we're going to add a new lock_manager_operation to
finish setting up the lease while still holding the i_lock. To do
this, we'll
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 06:08:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Can you just return -EEXIST if reusing an existing one and make it a
normal private pointer a we use elsewhere?
That sounds a little confusing...
We have two pointers we pass down to generic_setlease: the file_lock
itself
In later patches, we're going to add a new lock_manager_operation to
finish setting up the lease while still holding the i_lock. To do
this, we'll need to pass a little bit of info in the fcntl setlease
case (primarily an fasync structure). Plumb the extra pointer into
there in advance of that.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:14AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
In later patches, we're going to add a new lock_manager_operation to
finish setting up the lease while still holding the i_lock. To do
this, we'll need to pass a little bit of info in the fcntl setlease
case (primarily an fasync
