On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700 > > > Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h, > > > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument > > > > is always NULL. > > > > > > > > How about removing it? > > > > > > > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches > > > > but it should be clear enough... > > > > > > > > > > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies > > > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred > > > locking code. > > > > Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from > > dlm; it never really worked. > GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path > (gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain > amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will > be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday). This is about deferred file locks from NFS, not gfs2's "deferred" lock mode. Dave -- 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
