From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] locks: have locks_release_file use flock_lock_file to release generic flock locks Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:46:58 -0800 Message-ID: <20150109144658.GA12860@infradead.org> References: <1420742065-28423-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <1420742065-28423-3-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <20150109142723.GA30294@infradead.org> <20150109064257.02f28d85@synchrony.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150109064257.02f28d85@synchrony.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 06:42:57AM -0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > > I'd suggest keeping an open coded loop in locks_remove_flock, which > > should both be more efficient and easier to review. > > > > I don't know. On the one hand, I rather like keeping all of the lock > removal logic in a single spot. On the other hand, we do take and drop > the i_lock/flc_lock more than once with this scheme if there are both > flock locks and leases present at the time of the close. Open coding > the loops would allow us to do that just once. > > I'll ponder it a bit more for the next iteration... FYI, I like the split into locks_remove_flock, it's just that flock_lock_file is giant mess. If it helps you feel free to keep it as-is for now and just document what you did in the changelog in detail.