From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH] AFS: Implement file locking [try #2] Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <32087.1180514132@redhat.com> References: <20070529215736.GO6815@fieldses.org> <20070529145426.19366.35289.stgit@warthog.cambridge.redhat.com> Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:50220 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803AbXE3Ifm (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2007 04:35:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070529215736.GO6815@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org J. Bruce Fields wrote: > --without having tried to understand how they're actually used, these > data structures (like the pending_locks and granted_locks lists) seem to > duplicate stuff that's already kept in fs/locks.c. Is there a reason > they're required? Yes. I need to get the server lock first, before going to the VFS locking routines. The VFS routines as they stand aren't particularly useful, and they permit things that AFS doesn't support (such as lock upgrading). David