On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:55:39AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Hm, two problems: > > - We introduce the possibility of fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, F_UNLCK) > > failing with ENOMEM. > > splitt ->setlease into ->add_least and ->delete_lease. No need to pass > in a structure for the later. No need to return one either. Sounds fine to me. > > > - fasync_helper(.,.,1,.) sleeps. Argh. > > That's not new.. So we could do unlock_flocks(); error = fasync_helper(fd, filp, 1, &fl->fl_fasync); lock_flocks(); and say, hey, we didn't introduce any new bug there. But.... I don't know, maybe add a version of fasync_add_entry() that takes a preallocated fasync_struct?? --b. -- 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
