> +/* XXX: for first cut may fall back on returning file that doesn't work
> + * at all? */
I think moving this code around might be a good opportunity to remove
this confusing comment.
> +static struct file *find_writeable_file(struct nfs4_file *f)
> +{
> + struct file *ret;
> +
> + spin_lock(&f->fi_lock);
> + ret = __nfs4_get_fd(f, O_WRONLY);
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = __nfs4_get_fd(f, O_RDWR);
> + spin_unlock(&f->fi_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static struct file *find_readable_file(struct nfs4_file *f)
> +{
> + struct file *ret;
> +
> + spin_lock(&f->fi_lock);
> + ret = __nfs4_get_fd(f, O_RDONLY);
> + if (!ret)
> + ret = __nfs4_get_fd(f, O_RDWR);
> + spin_unlock(&f->fi_lock);
> + return ret;
Seems like these two functions could be easily consolidated by passing
a single flags argument.
--
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
