Re: [PATCH 2/5] locks: new locks_mandatory_area calling convention

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:38:30PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > +	if (size < inode->i_size) {
> > +		return locks_mandatory_area(filp, size, inode->i_size - 1,
> > +				true);
> > +	} else {
> > +		return locks_mandatory_area(filp, inode->i_size, size - 1,
> > +				true);
> 
> I feel like these callers would be just slightly more self-documenting
> if that last parameter was F_WRLCK instead of true.

Sure, I can change that forthe next version.

--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux