On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Lock patches merged. Doing another check of the smb2 code now and doing some testing, but that is next to merge. -- 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
