On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:47:09AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > But I think at least a comment in the code would be in order, or this > > same mistake might be made again. Also I think the original code flow > > is somewhat illogical. > > Yeah, I was literally just reverting the problematic lines of your > previous commit. I'd rather keep it that way for now, just as a clear > separation between the revert/bugfix and the cleanup. OK. > > How about this (it's essentially the same patch just a bit rearranged, > > the authorship is still yours of course ;) > > ... but would happily queue up the cleanup for 2.6.30. Cool. > Actually, I find it strange to have just that single case which breaks, > so that the code after the switch, which looks like it should be shared, > actually just applies to one case. I'd be inclined to just suck > everything up to "out:" into the -EAGAIN case and then make all cases > "goto out" (or, equivalently, break). Yes, but it needs to be sucked into the FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED case as well. It's just two lines and one of them is setting the error value, so it's not real duplication. Thanks, Miklos -- 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
