> > actually doing most of what you've just suggested here, which i take to be
> > a good sign.
>
> As long as it's great minds thinking alike and not fools seldom
> differing ;-)
ooh, good phrase, one with which i wasn't familiar :)
> > most of my refactoring came out of trying
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:08:18PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:53:04PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > So, the problem is that fcntl_setlease() does
> >
> > vfs_setlease()
> > fasync_helper()
> >
> > which the bkl held over both, and you want to preserve th
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 03:53:04PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> So, the problem is that fcntl_setlease() does
>
> vfs_setlease()
> fasync_helper()
>
> which the bkl held over both, and you want to preserve that?
>
> But what that BKL is doing is a mystery to me--the very first thi
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:35:50PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > vfs_setlease()
> > > >if (f_op->setlease())
> > > > res = f_op->setlease()
> > > > if (res)
> > > > return res;
> > > >lock_kernel()
> > > >generic_setlease()
> > > >unlock_kernel()
> >
> >
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:47:18PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > Then I started to wonder about the current split of functionality between
> > > fcntl_setlease, vfs_setlease and generic_setlease. The check for no
> > > other process having this file open should be common to all filesystems.
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:55:36PM -0500, david m. richter wrote:
> fwiw, i've done some work on extending the lease subsystem to help
> support the full range of requirements for NFSv4 file and directory
> delegations (e.g., breaking a lease when unlinking a file) and we ended up
> actual
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 01:55:36PM -0500, david m. richter wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > The current implementation of vfs_setlease/generic_setlease/etc is a
> > bit quirky. I've been thinking it over for the past couple of days,
> > and I think
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> The current implementation of vfs_setlease/generic_setlease/etc is a
> bit quirky. I've been thinking it over for the past couple of days,
> and I think we need to refactor it to work sensibly.
>
> As you may have noticed, I've been m
Hi Bruce,
The current implementation of vfs_setlease/generic_setlease/etc is a
bit quirky. I've been thinking it over for the past couple of days,
and I think we need to refactor it to work sensibly.
As you may have noticed, I've been mulling over getting rid of the
BKL in fs/locks.c and the le
