> Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit > that claimed just to be shuffling code around. Another complaint about this series: using EINPROGRESS to signal asynchronous locking looks really fishy. How does the filesystem know, that the caller wants to do async locking? How do we make sure, that the filesystem (like fuse or 9p, which "blindly" return the error from the server) doesn't return EINPROGRESS even when it's _not_ doing an asynchronous lock? I think it would have been much cleaner to have a completely separate interface for async locking, instead of trying to cram that into f_op->lock(). Would that be possible to fix now? Or at least make EINPROGRESS a kernel-internal error value (>512), to make it that it has a special meaning for the _kernel only_? Thanks, Miklos -- 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
