On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 08:41:51 -0400 > Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > GFS2 and NFS have setlease routines that always just return -EINVAL. >> > Turn that into a generic routine that can live in fs/libfs.c. >> > >> > Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: <cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > fs/gfs2/file.c | 22 +--------------------- >> > fs/libfs.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> > fs/nfs/file.c | 13 +------------ >> > fs/nfs/internal.h | 1 - >> > fs/nfs/nfs4file.c | 2 +- >> > include/linux/fs.h | 1 + >> > 6 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >> >> Acked-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > > Thanks. While spinning this up, I did have a momentary pause to wonder > if -ENOLCK would be a better return value here. > > It would make it easier to distinguish this from from "oops, I passed > in bogus arguments". For now, I'll leave it as -EINVAL, but it's > something to consider... > Actually, it looks as if when you compile with !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING, then fcntl_setlease() returns the value '0' (which would be "success!"). The word "confusing" only begins to describe it all. Cheers Trond -- 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
