Hi Christoph,
Thanks for reviewing these!
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 07:35 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +/* 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.
Will do.
> > +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.
Yes, but we'd have to invent a new set of flags for just this function
and so I'm not sure that the end result would be more readable.
We can't reuse O_RDONLY/O_WRONLY/O_RDWR since they can't be bitwise ORed
to produce the 'read or read/write', 'write or read/write' combinations
that we need.
Cheers
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
