On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:43:51AM -0400, Robert Rappaport wrote: > My interpretation of the preceeding is that there is agreement that > the functionality currently implemented in __setlease() should be > exported, even though the exported name may not be __setlease(). Is > this correct? Yes. > If so, that is just fine with me. OK, good. I'll revise and post a new series. (Do people prefer another mailbomb or a git url?) > The question that I have now is when do you think it likely that these > changes get into the released code? I hope that the plan is to get it > there fairly soon. It would seem reasonable to me to put off the question of how to do proper distributed lease-breaking for now, in which case the remaining patches seem straightforward enough to me that they could go in now. My main question is whether the partial disabling of leases looks to the GFS2 people like reasonable behavior. --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
