On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:41:44PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:59PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > We do this by adding a new fcntl lock command: FL_CANCELLK. Some day this > > might also be made available to userspace applications that could benefit from > > an asynchronous locking api. > > Should we really add more and more subcases to ->lock that probably don't > share implementation code? I'd much prefer adding different operations. That'd be OK. We considered both-- http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=116616992004056&w=2 --but chose a new ->lock case just because that might provide a cleaner mapping to the userspace interface if we ended up doing that some day. Is there any hard reason why it wouldn't work? --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
