On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:17:46 +0300 Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is one of the preparation step that makes the byte-range locking code more > protocol independent. > Ok, I sat down to review this set today, but found it very difficult to do so. Most of these patches have little to no explanation or justification at all. Terseness is not a virtue when it come to patch descriptions: > Pavel Shilovsky (6): > CIFS: Move locks to file structure ^^^ That's all that patch says. No explanation of *why* you're moving those to the file structure -- whatever that is. Do you mean cifsFileInfo here? > CIFS: Fix VFS locks usage This one says: Surround VFS posix_lock_file_wait calls with CIFS lock_mutex where it needs. ...so you're saying that the existing code is broken? Or is it only a problem for SMB2 support? Does a fix need to go to stable? > CIFS: Convert lock type to 32 bit variable > CIFS: Separate protocol specific lock type handling > CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from getlk > CIFS: Separate protocol specific part from setlk > > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 1 - > fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 5 +- > fs/cifs/file.c | 250 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 3 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) > Given that it's not clear to me what the goal of this patchset is, not to mention the lack of any description on these patches, I can't reasonably review this. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
