From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F0BC4320A for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:15:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2D1610E6 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236037AbhHTSQ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:16:27 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47104 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235950AbhHTSQZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:16:25 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E56A461056; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:15:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1629483347; bh=lEauG8US0wWV105yX+m78yPpsHVn1SxEBoQkVuK3wLQ=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=iZ8eL9VRJ2N0qnU/+VFbVX5aGbw4kSBmXpVBDdGtuWN2mZZshQv3Sb6XkSinqPdSC R5RyHVBJpS81J3HejjC36ETWbCFSCGZ0D5WUK6YDB8XgpgWPo63s8BlbXeGRbCRKnt GV70SMKuQrvX1zNhZMdl9qhyq1Q+3jFAVMH49sDZrL3YMWU1Q1IxIWMrV1YzPOmaMu JB6HA0VU2hf0RC2+nKj9N4D7MveLwtqVI1BcAPje48v763gchaevYK9wjV2GBFR1+G gZtxMTvv1RC6qzlHrVFmgvJGAekzzmMg1Kz3BfKshjEKmIWIV9wrDLBOwoXfdzT/Sg 6GTkKruOhJ+QQ== Message-ID: <30fdfda30b42b8b836a199b3cbe65d1673f5100f.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] fs: remove support for mandatory locking From: Jeff Layton To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com, david@redhat.com, willy@infradead.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, luto@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, rostedt@goodmis.org Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:15:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20210820163919.435135-1-jlayton@kernel.org> References: <20210820163919.435135-1-jlayton@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4 (3.40.4-1.fc34) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 12:39 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > v3: slight revision to verbiage, and use pr_warn_once > > The first patch in this series adds a new warning that should pop on > kernels that have mandatory locking enabled when someone mounts a > filesystem with -o mand. The second patch removes support for mandatory > locking altogether. > > What I think we probably want to do is apply the first to v5.14 before > it ships and allow the new warning to trickle out into stable kernels. > Then we can merge the second patch in v5.15 to go ahead and remove it. > > Sound like a plan? > > Jeff Layton (2): > fs: warn about impending deprecation of mandatory locks > fs: remove mandatory file locking support > > .../filesystems/mandatory-locking.rst | 188 ------------------ > fs/9p/vfs_file.c | 12 -- > fs/Kconfig | 10 - > fs/afs/flock.c | 4 - > fs/ceph/locks.c | 3 - > fs/gfs2/file.c | 3 - > fs/locks.c | 116 +---------- > fs/namei.c | 4 +- > fs/namespace.c | 25 +-- > fs/nfs/file.c | 4 - > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 13 -- > fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 15 -- > fs/ocfs2/locks.c | 4 - > fs/open.c | 8 +- > fs/read_write.c | 7 - > fs/remap_range.c | 10 - > include/linux/fs.h | 84 -------- > mm/mmap.c | 6 - > mm/nommu.c | 3 - > 19 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 505 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 Documentation/filesystems/mandatory-locking.rst > I went ahead and pushed this version into the locks-next branch, so we can give it some soak time before merging. -- Jeff Layton