From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753626AbaIJTeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:07 -0400 Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:47744 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750967AbaIJTeF (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:02 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Jeff Layton Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Christoph Hellwig , trond.myklebust@primarydata.com, smayhew@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/12] nfs: convert lock handling to use file_lock_context Message-ID: <20140910193402.GE4210@fieldses.org> References: <1410359330-27564-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <1410359330-27564-9-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <20140910191734.GD4210@fieldses.org> <20140910152810.36ec5bc0@tlielax.poochiereds.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140910152810.36ec5bc0@tlielax.poochiereds.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:28:10PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Yes, that's the downside of moving to multiple list_heads. Still, I > think it's worth doing that even if we end up with the code a bit more > verbose. > > It may be best to consider moving some of this into helpers that live > in locks.c. I really don't like having filesystems poke around in the > intimate details of the file locking code as a general rule... I was also wondering whether helpers like for_each_posix_lock() or first_posix_lock() would be worth it. --b.