26 марта 2012 г. 22:48 пользователь Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> написал: > 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. > Sorry - forgot to add proper descriptions for these two patches - will repost asap. -- Best regards, Pavel Shilovsky. -- 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
