Re: [NLM] 2.6.27 broken

[Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>]

On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:10 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:29:58PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Whoops, right, missed that; so, I'm applying the below, sending the
> fixup in now, and queuing up the cleanup for 2.6.30 (with the blame
> assigned back to you, hah--object or have me add your signed-off-by).

No objections :)

Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>

BTW, one tip for stable patches: if you add a "Cc: stable@kernel.org"
line to the Signed-off-by block, then it will ease the patch's way into
the stable kernels as it will automatically be picked up by Greg's
scripts when it hits the mainline tree.

Thanks,
Miklos