> On Nov 14, 2022, at 1:38 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 16:52 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: >> On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 20:29 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 11, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> We currently do a lock_to_openmode call based on the arguments from the >>>> NLM_UNLOCK call, but that will always set the fl_type of the lock to >>>> F_UNLCK, the the O_RDONLY descriptor is always chosen. >>> >>> Except for the above sentence, these all look sane to me. >>> I can apply them to nfsd's for-next once they've seen some >>> review on fsdevel, as you mentioned in the other thread. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks. That should say "and the O_RDONLY...". Fixed in my tree. >> >> I'll go ahead and resend with fsdevel included. >> > > I reposted the series Friday afternoon. > > What might be best is for you to carry the first 3 patches in the nfsd > tree, and I'll take the filelock: patch into the locks-next branch, > along with the other filelock API cleanups. > > Sound OK? 1/4 through 3/4 have been applied and pushed. Thanks! -- Chuck Lever
