From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/17] locks: add fl_notify arguments for asynchronous lock return Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:49:10 -0400 Message-ID: <20070410214910.GK7502@fieldses.org> References: <20070409184041.GA28716@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Trond Myklebust , Marc Eshel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:40809 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753569AbXDJVtV (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 17:49:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070409184041.GA28716@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 07:40:41PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 07:40:58PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > We're using fl_notify to asynchronously return the result of a lock > > request. So we want fl_notify to be able to return a status and, if > > appropriate, a conflicting lock. > > > > This only current caller of fl_notify is in the blocked case, in which case > > we don't use these extra arguments. > > > > We also allow fl_notify to return an error. (Also ignored for now.) > > I don't really like the overload of fl_notify. What the reason not > to use a separate callback? My vague memory is that Trond said something to the affect of "fl_notify is there, let's use it rather than adding yet another callback." But our new usage of fl_notify does requires slightly different arguments and returns, and is used in a subtly different case. So I wouldn't object to a new callback. Trond? --b.