Re: [PATCH V2 0/3] Minor cleanup for locks API

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:38:12 -0400
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com> wrote:

> NFS has recently been moving things around to cope with the situation where
> a struct file may not be available during an unlock.  That work has
> presented an opportunity to do a minor cleanup on the locks API.
> 
> Users of posix_lock_file_wait() (for FL_POSIX style locks) and
> flock_lock_file_wait() (for FL_FLOCK style locks) can instead call
> locks_lock_file_wait() for both lock types.  Because the passed-in file_lock
> specifies its own type, the correct function can be selected on behalf of
> the user.
> 
> This work allows further cleanup within NFS and lockd which will be
> submitted separately.
> 
> Changes in v2:
> 	- fix typo that caused build failure for CONFIG_FILE_LOCKS=n
> 	- make posix_lock_inode_wait and flock_lock_inode_wait static
> 	- trimmed away a number of distro-lists to minimize cross-posting
> 
> Benjamin Coddington (3):
>   locks: introduce locks_lock_inode_wait()
>   Move locks API users to locks_lock_inode_wait()
>   locks: cleanup posix_lock_inode_wait and flock_lock_inode_wait
> 
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/file.c |    8 +----
>  fs/9p/vfs_file.c                           |    4 +-
>  fs/ceph/locks.c                            |    4 +-
>  fs/cifs/file.c                             |    2 +-
>  fs/dlm/plock.c                             |    4 +-
>  fs/fuse/file.c                             |    2 +-
>  fs/gfs2/file.c                             |    8 +++---
>  fs/lockd/clntproc.c                        |   13 +---------
>  fs/locks.c                                 |   35 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  fs/nfs/file.c                              |   13 +---------
>  fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c                          |   13 +---------
>  fs/ocfs2/locks.c                           |    8 +++---
>  include/linux/fs.h                         |   21 +++-------------
>  13 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 82 deletions(-)
> 

Looks good to me too. I'll plan to merge them for v4.4.

Thanks!
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>