On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:14:24 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:31AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Ensure that it's OK to pass in a NULL file_lock double pointer on > > a F_UNLCK request and convert the vfs_setlease F_UNLCK callers to > > do just that. > > > > Finally, turn the BUG_ON in generic_setlease into a WARN_ON_ONCE > > with an error return. That's a problem we can handle without > > crashing the box if it occurs. > > Can we just make generic_delete_lease (maye renamed to vfs_delete_lease) > the interface for deleting leases instead of going through a useless > multiplex and file operation? > I'm not sure that change really makes sense to me at this point. Suppose we have an exportable filesystem with a ->setlease implementation [1]. We end up calling into it to set up a lease and it calls generic_add_lease. If we make the change you're suggesting, then we'll have no parallel to a ->setlease op when removing that lease. We could of course make a ->dellease op or something, but I'd rather not introduce that change until I've had a chance to do some other cleanup to the file locking infrastructure. So...I'm not opposed to doing what you suggest, but I'd rather not do it just yet until I've gotten a little farther with some other cleanup of how we deal with locks in general. I think it'll be easier to do that once some other changes have gone in. I'll post a draft patchset based on those changes "real soon now" as an RFC. Hopefully at that point my rationale will make a bit more sense... [1]: of course, only cifs has a non-trivial one for now and it's pretty half-assed... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
