On 20 Jun 2017, at 13:06, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Now that I think about it a bit more, I don't think we really need a > flag here. > > Just have the ->lock operation set the fl_pid to a negative value. That > will never be a valid pid anyway. Then flock_translate_pid could just > return any negative value directly instead of trying to translate it. > > In practice we would always just set it to -1. Maybe even add something > like this that the lock-> operation could set it to? > > #define FILE_LOCK_OWNER_UNDEFINED -1 So for filesystems that set a remote pid, they should negate the pid to mean that the pid should not be translated? Then when we return that pid, we flip it back again, or display a negative number, or turn it into -1? The flag, having a readable name, would make things a bit clearer as to what the filesystems expect to happen to that pid value. Ben -- 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
