On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2011/10/24 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:33:28 +0400 >> Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> This is the rest of byte-range lock cache patchset that includes several fixes in patches #1 and #3. >>> >>> The patchset is going to simplify brlocking code and add caching support for exclusive oplock cases. I splitted it into several independent parts - so, each can be applied separately once it's reviewed. >>> >>> Any comments and testing are welcome! >>> >>> Pavel Shilovsky (4): >>> CIFS: Implement caching mechanism for mandatory brlocks >>> CIFS: Implement caching mechanism for posix brlocks >>> CIFS: Send as many mandatory unlock ranges at once as possible >>> CIFS: Make cifs_push_locks send as many locks at once as possible >>> >>> fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 2 + >>> fs/cifs/cifsproto.h | 7 +- >>> fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 48 +++++- >>> fs/cifs/file.c | 533 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>> 4 files changed, 538 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-) >>> >> >> This patchset seems to fix the regression in the earlier one. I've also >> looked over it and don't see any obvious problems. Let's get this >> merged early so it can get the full testing cycle for 3.2. >> >> Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for the review! > > Steve, can you look at these 4 patches, please? yes - I am testing them now. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
