On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 12:54:45PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
> Wednesday, July 28, 2004, 12:49:48 PM, Jeff wrote:
>
> > This is from device.c. The intent seems to
> > be that if an argument is specified, then it overrides
> > an existing value. However, a new completion ast address
> > is only loaded if a new blocking ast address is specified.
>
> > if (kparams->flags & DLM_LKF_CONVERT) {
> > struct dlm_lkb *lkb =
> > dlm_get_lkb(fi->fi_ls->ls_lockspace, kparams->lkid);
> > if (!lkb) {
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > li = (struct lock_info *)lkb->lkb_astparam;
>
> > /* Only override these if they are provided */
> > if (li->li_user_lksb)
> > li->li_user_lksb = kparams->lksb;
> > if (li->li_astparam)
> > li->li_astparam = kparams->astparam;
> > if (li->li_bastaddr)
> > li->li_bastaddr = kparams->bastaddr;
> --->> if (li->li_bastaddr)
> --->> li->li_astaddr = kparams->astaddr;
> > li->li_flags = 0;
> > }
>
> Looking at this again, shouldn't it be testing kparams-> in
> the if() rather than li->*? The current code seems to write new
> values if there were old ones as opposed to if new values
> are specified.
er, yes it looks like it. I'll check in a fix when I get back home.
--
patrick
