From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Pavel's Lock cleanup Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:12:14 -0400 Message-ID: <20111014211214.GA15319@fieldses.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Steve French Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:23:52PM -0500, Steve French wrote: > I like Pavel's lock cleanup (1st patch of series) so far, am > continuing to review it, but I also noticed a few things that we need > to do in the future. This line of code: > > if (flock->fl_flags & FL_LEASE) > cFYI(1, "Lease on file - not implemented yet"); > > reminded me that we should check if we need to implement this (in cifs > we can return yes if we have a lease already (oplock), but in smb2.1 > and later we can request a lease or an upgrade to an existing one, on > the fly). And you'll also need to make sure you call break_lease() when you find out it's broken. A description of the smb (1/2/2.1) oplock and lease semantics would be useful--I'm curious whether they're really a good fit for the linux vfs's lease semantics. --b.