Re: [NLM] 2.6.27 broken

[Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>]

On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:47:09AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > But I think at least a comment in the code would be in order, or this
> > same mistake might be made again.  Also I think the original code flow
> > is somewhat illogical.
> 
> Yeah, I was literally just reverting the problematic lines of your
> previous commit.  I'd rather keep it that way for now, just as a clear
> separation between the revert/bugfix and the cleanup.

OK.

> > How about this (it's essentially the same patch just a bit rearranged,
> > the authorship is still yours of course ;)
> 
> ... but would happily queue up the cleanup for 2.6.30.

Cool.

> Actually, I find it strange to have just that single case which breaks,
> so that the code after the switch, which looks like it should be shared,
> actually just applies to one case.  I'd be inclined to just suck
> everything up to "out:" into the -EAGAIN case and then make all cases
> "goto out" (or, equivalently, break).

Yes, but it needs to be sucked into the FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED case as well.
It's just two lines and one of them is setting the error value, so it's
not real duplication.

Thanks,
Miklos