It appears that there is agreement that the functionality currently implemented in __setlease() should be exported, even though the exported name may not be __setlease().

That is just fine with me.

The question that I have now is when do you think it likely that these changes get into the released code?  I hope that the plan is to get it there fairly soon.

- Robert Rappaport

On 6/5/07, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 15:56 -0700, Marc Eshel wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> The file system does need to keep the local state up to date, like it does
> with posix locks, so it might need to call __setlease(). The why we had it
> before was that the call to the file system was done from outside of
> setlease() and the file system was able to call setlease() which is
> exported. Now that the call to the fs  moved into setlease() the file
> system can not call it anymore so one possible solution would be to export
> __setlease().
> Marc.

Please just make a vfs_setlease() which has the ability to call down
into the filesystem and leave the exported setlease() as a generic
method that can continue to be called by the filesystems themselves (and
acts as a fallback for vfs_setlease()). That would be closer to the VFS
naming conventions.

Trond