On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:46:30PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> The rules for fl_type are rather convoluted. Typically it's treated as
> holding specific values, except in the case of LOCK_MAND, in which case
> it can be or'ed with LOCK_READ|LOCK_WRITE.
>
> On some arches F_WRLCK == 2 and F_UNLCK == 3, so and'ing with F_WRLCK will also
> catch the F_UNLCK case. It's unlikely in either case here that we'd ever see
> F_UNLCK since those shouldn't end up on any lists, but it's still best to be
> consistent.
Looks good to me--ACK.
(Also ran this through my lease tests just to make sure.)
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index cdcf219..6c92264 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__break_lease);
> void lease_get_mtime(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *time)
> {
> struct file_lock *flock = inode->i_flock;
> - if (flock && IS_LEASE(flock) && (flock->fl_type & F_WRLCK))
> + if (flock && IS_LEASE(flock) && (flock->fl_type == F_WRLCK))
> *time = current_fs_time(inode->i_sb);
> else
> *time = inode->i_mtime;
> @@ -2191,8 +2191,8 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
> } else {
> seq_printf(f, "%s ",
> (lease_breaking(fl))
> - ? (fl->fl_type & F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
> - : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> + ? (fl->fl_type == F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
> + : (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
> }
> if (inode) {
> #ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW
> --
> 1.7.11.2
>
> --
> 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
--
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
