Re: [PATCH] fs/locks.c Partially fixes leases issue

[Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>]

Joseph D. Wagner wrote:
> On Thursday, December 4, 2003 8:55 am, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > These two are so similar they can be merged; just don't test "arg".
> 
> That's what I through at first, but since this is only a partial patch, and 
> a future patch would need to run additional checks independent of any write 
> leases, I figured that it would be easier for the next guy if it had its 
> own section so the next guy would know where the patch goes and have an 
> easier time figuring it out.

That's what a comment saying "FIXME: R_RDLCK is not implemented
properly; it's currently treated the same as F_WRLCK" prior to the
merged test would be good for.

Anyone able to implement F_RDLCK properly is not going to have a
hard time knowing where to put the code :)  Creating an empty place
just in case someone may fill it in future is the same as "this
page is under construction" on a web site :) :)

> > I don't agree with this patch as it is because, as Sean Neakums
> > pointed out, there is actually a field `inode->i_writecount' which is
> > remarkeably appropriate.
[...]
> 
> As I said, it's just a partial fix until someone does all that stuff you 
> describe.  I really don't know enough to do all that, at least not yet.

If you have the time, try my suggestion.  It is not complicated and
will fix the feature properly - and you'll learn a lot!

> Are you saying my patch won't get in?

That's not my decision to make.

It probably should go in (with the simpler test and comment), as it's
a genuine bug fix.

I'm saying that F_RDLCK is presently useless because it's broken, so
no applications dare use it as intended, and your fix doesn't really
change that - it still isn't useful.  I'm egging you on to do it properly :)

-- Jamie