From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1BD57F88 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 04:30:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBD68F8035 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2015 02:30:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id Hr8yEuZmHOndDD7t (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 07 Jan 2015 02:30:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 11:30:26 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] fs: add FL_LAYOUT lease type Message-ID: <20150107103026.GB28783@lst.de> References: <1420561721-9150-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1420561721-9150-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20150106104652.49078615@synchrony.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150106104652.49078615@synchrony.poochiereds.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jeff Layton Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:46:52AM -0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > So with the current code, layouts are always whole-file? layouts aren't whole-file, but layout recalls are. > Tracking layouts as a lease-like object seems reasonable, but I'm not > 100% thrilled with overloading all of the lease code with this. Perhaps > it should be its own sort of object with a separate API to manage them? > That would also make it easier to support layouts that are not for the > entire file. > > To that end, it might be nice to hold off on taking this until we > deprecate the i_flock list as we can then give layouts their own > list_head in the file_lock_context. It would also make it easier to use > a new sort of object to represent layouts. > > I just cleaned up that patchset last week, and will re-post it soon > once I give it a bit of testing this week. I'm happy to add support to your reworked locks/leases/etc handling for this. As for which one gets merged first I'd say which one is in a mergeable shape earlier. If you're confident to get your rework in ASAP I'm happy to rebase it on top, otherwise doing it the other way around sounds easier. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs