Hi David-
On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:29 PM, David M. Richter wrote:
In generic_setlease(), we don't need to allocate a new struct
file_lock
or check for readers or writers when called with F_UNLCK.
Since you re-ordered the locks_alloc_lock call in the next patch, it
seems to me this would look a lot cleaner with a switch statement
instead of all these "if (arg == F_FOO)".
Signed-off-by: David M. Richter <richterd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/locks.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index b9f3a0b..da1d0dd 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -1367,18 +1367,20 @@ int generic_setlease(struct file *filp, long
arg, struct file_lock **flp)
lease = *flp;
- error = -EAGAIN;
- if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
- goto out;
- if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
- && ((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > 1)
- || (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
- goto out;
+ if (arg != F_UNLCK) {
+ error = -EAGAIN;
+ if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
+ goto out;
+ if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
+ && ((atomic_read(&dentry->d_count) > 1)
+ || (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
+ goto out;
- error = -ENOMEM;
- new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
- if (new_fl == NULL)
- goto out;
+ error = -ENOMEM;
+ new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
+ if (new_fl == NULL)
+ goto out;
+ }
/*
* At this point, we know that if there is an exclusive
--
1.5.4
--
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
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
