On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:46:23 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We have no mechanism to emulate LOCK_MAND locks on NFSv4, so explicitly > return -EINVAL if someone requests it. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/nfs/file.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c > index 61d3670..15f4bbb 100644 > --- a/fs/nfs/file.c > +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c > @@ -834,6 +834,15 @@ static int nfs_flock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl) > if (!(fl->fl_flags & FL_FLOCK)) > return -ENOLCK; > > + /* > + * The NFSv4 protocol doesn't support LOCK_MAND, which is not part of > + * any standard. In principle we might be able to support LOCK_MAND > + * on NFSv2/3 since NLMv3/4 support DOS share modes, but for now the > + * NFS code is not set up for it. > + */ > + if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) > + return -EINVAL; > + > if (NFS_SERVER(inode)->flags & NFS_MOUNT_LOCAL_FLOCK) > is_local = 1; > Hmm...it looks like GFS2 does a similar check and returns -EOPNOTSUPP. Should we do the same here instead of -EINVAL? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
