On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 08:51:17AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:12AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Some of the latter paragraphs seem ambiguous and just plain wrong. > > In particular the break_lease comment makes no sense. We call > > break_lease (and break_deleg) from all sorts of vfs-layer functions, > > so there is clearly such a method. Right, but there's no f_op->break_lease. Anyway: > > Also, we are close to being able to allow for "real" filesystem > > setlease methods so remove the final comment about it not being a > > full implementation yet. > > I'd remove even more: > > > + * > > + * This will call the filesystem's setlease file method, if defined. Note that > > + * there is no getlease method; instead, the filesystem setlease method should > > + * call back to generic_setlease() to add a lease to the inode's lease list, > > + * where fcntl_getlease() can find it. Since fcntl_getlease() only reports > > + * whether the current task holds a lease, a cluster filesystem need only do > > + * this for leases held by processes on this node. > > */ > > If we'd ever want a full implementation I think we'd absolutely need > the getlease method. But instead of hypothetizing about future > implementation I'd rather leave it to those actually implementing such > support, if that ever happens. I agree, that makes sense. --b. -- 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
