On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 12:24 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:53:59 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 14:11 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:23:43 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > op->info.rv is an s32, but it's only used as a u8. > > > I don't understand this patch. info.rv is s32 (and I assume that "rv" > > > stands for "return value"). > > > > In this case it's not a return value but an input. [] > Well, it's an input into the lm_grant callback, but it originally comes > in the downcall from userland (AFAICT). In this case, I'm referring to [] > It's been a while since I've looked over the lockd code, but I believe > it's just a flag that indicates whether there is still a conflict > between the block and the lock on the file. Yes, that is how it is used. > I don't think that patch will break anything. I just don't see it as an > improvement on what's already there. > > The rationale for this is lost in antiquity, but I think the basic idea > was that you're either granting or updating the block based on the > _result_ from some check for a lock conflict. While "result" as a name > is a little confusing, "type" is even more so, IMO. > > If you're hell-bent on changing this, then my suggestion would be > to turn it into a bool and call it "conflict" or something similar. If > you do decide to do that, adding some helpful kerneldoc comments would > be a nice improvement too. I hope I'm never hell-bent on patches. I do prefer easier to read, clear code and I agree that using it as a bool would make the code better. I'll see about kernel-doc changes too. cheers, Joe -- 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
