On 19 Jun 2017, at 8:37, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > Apologies for the delayed response.. > > On 7 Jun 2017, at 7:40, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 16:45 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: >>> Now that we're translating fl_pid for F_GETLK and /proc/locks, we need to >>> handle the case where a remote filesystem directly sets fl_pid. In that >>> case, the fl_pid should not be translated into a local pid namespace. If >>> the filesystem implements the lock operation, set a flag to return the >>> lock's fl_pid value directly, rather translate it. >>> >> >> Actually, you're not translating anything for F_GETLK until we get to >> this patch. Patch #2 in this series removes the fl_nspid field, but the >> pid translation isn't fixed until here. That does mean a nominal >> regression here in how fl_pid is reported between the two. > > Good catch. > >> Would it be best to squash #2 and #3 together? Or maybe just go ahead >> and universally translate the fl_pid field until you add the flag in >> this patch? > > I'll send a v4 that universally translates the fl_pid field until this > patch. I think the first two patches should be separate. Ah, but /2 and 3/ should just be squashed, yes I agree with that. Ben
