From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
devel@openvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:37:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070919183703.GE5946@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46EFD574.5060705@openvz.org>
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 05:41:08PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> This is the next step in fs/locks.c cleanup before turning
> it into using the struct pid *.
>
> This time I found, that there are some places that do a
> similar thing - they try to apply a lock on a file and go
> to sleep on error till the blocker exits.
>
> All these places can be easily consolidated, saving 28
> lines of code and more than 600 bytes from the .text,
> but there is one minor note.
I'm not opposed to consolidating this code, but would it be possible to
do so in a more straightforward way, without passing in a callback
function? E.g. a single __posix_lock_file_wait that just took an inode
instead of a filp and called __posix_lock_file() could be called from
both posix_lock_file_wait() and locks_mandatory_locked, right?
> The locks_mandatory_area() code becomes a bit different
> after this patch - it no longer checks for the inode's
> permissions change. Nevertheless, this check is useless
> without my another patch that wakes the waiter up in the
> notify_change(), which is not considered to be useful for
> now.
OK. Might be better to submit this as a separate patch, though.
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-19 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-18 13:41 [PATCH] Consolidate sleeping routines in file locking code Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-19 18:37 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2007-09-20 9:09 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-20 20:39 ` J. Bruce Fields
2007-09-21 6:57 ` Pavel Emelyanov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070919183703.GE5946@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=devel@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox