On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 04:37:03PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 08:19 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:54:33PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 15:12 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 03:10:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > In lieu of adding a new inode field, another possible option, a bit > > > > > kludgy, would be extending i_flock with an additional fl_flag > > > > > FL_BLOCKLEASE. > > > > > > > > > > #define IS_BLOCKLEASE(fl) (fl->fl_flags & FL_BLOCKLEASE) > > > > > > > > Alas, that would mean adding and removing one of these file locks around > > > > every single link, unlink, rename,.... > > > > > > > > --b. > > > > > > You're adding a call to break_lease() for each of them. Currently > > > __break_lease() is only called if a lease exists. Assuming there aren't > > > any existing leases, couldn't break_lease() call something like > > > block_lease()? The free would be after the link, unlink, ..., > > > completed/failed. > > > > > > (You wouldn't actually need to alloc/free the 'struct file_lock' each > > > time, just set the pointer and reset to NULL.) > > > > Well, the pointer has to be set to something. I suppose we could put a > > struct file_lock on the stack. > > > > --b. > > Instead of putting the struct file_lock on the stack, how about creating > a dummy list containing a single element with FL_BLOCKLEASE set? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're proposing. Could you explain in more detail? --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
