On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:50:35PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Then you're returning -ENOMEM in a case when we really didn't need to do > an allocation, but is that really a problem? It's a rare case, and > opens can already fail with -ENOMEM for other reasons, and I'd rather > not have the extra hair. I'm certainly OK with that variant; if the folks maintaining fs/locks.c are happy with it, I'd suggest going for it. Note that you don't need to touch locks_conflict() call at all if you bail out early on allocation failure and it's definitely simpler and cleaner that way. -- 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
