On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:40:41PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:58PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > We're using fl_notify to asynchronously return the result of a lock > > request. So we want fl_notify to be able to return a status and, if > > appropriate, a conflicting lock. > > > > This only current caller of fl_notify is in the blocked case, in which case > > we don't use these extra arguments. > > > > We also allow fl_notify to return an error. (Also ignored for now.) > > I don't really like the overload of fl_notify. What the reason not > to use a separate callback? My vague memory is that Trond said something to the affect of "fl_notify is there, let's use it rather than adding yet another callback." But our new usage of fl_notify does requires slightly different arguments and returns, and is used in a subtly different case. So I wouldn't object to a new callback. Trond? --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
