From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:12:00 -0700
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v2 01/17] locks: consolidate "nolease"
	routines
In-Reply-To: <CAABAsM6v3-f_7cco8f_F5Wpy7PWJOUywQHH7A=mZ-LyHRASZ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1409834323-7171-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com>
	<1409834323-7171-2-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com>
	<CAHQdGtTqG8aW-cte2PW6pVw+OeCXATgr1BZwdhponuWMjzNg8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140904084938.2664bf0a@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
	<CAABAsM6v3-f_7cco8f_F5Wpy7PWJOUywQHH7A=mZ-LyHRASZ7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140904201200.GA26054@infradead.org>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:25:35PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Actually, it looks as if when you compile with !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING,
> then fcntl_setlease() returns the value '0' (which would be
> "success!"). The word "confusing" only begins to describe it all.

That's incorrect for sure, we should agree on a single sensible code
for:

 1) !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING
 2) !lease_enable
 3) filesystem doesn't support leases.