On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > > using locks_init_lock() plus the existing assignments. But, I think the > > best solution may be for dlm_posix_get() to set up a new lightweight > > file_lock with the values we need, and then call __locks_copy_lock() with > > it, just like posix_test_lock(). > > Why would we want to make another lock here? Is that just to make sure that > if new fields are added later that we deal with them appropriately? Just so we could use the __locks_copy_lock() function to make the assignments for us. Setting up the fake file_lock just for that purpose might not be worth it, though, so I'm happy to stick with the current patch. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
