* [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
@ 2007-09-17 7:57 Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-17 17:03 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Emelyanov @ 2007-09-17 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, devel, Trond Myklebust
The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
makes the code more readable.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
---
fs/nfs/file.c | 3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
index 73ddd2e..7a07be1 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
@@ -605,8 +605,7 @@ static int nfs_lock(struct file *filp, i
nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSLOCK);
/* No mandatory locks over NFS */
- if ((inode->i_mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == S_ISGID &&
- fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
+ if (__mandatory_lock(inode) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
return -ENOLCK;
if (IS_GETLK(cmd))
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
2007-09-17 7:57 [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks Pavel Emelyanov
@ 2007-09-17 17:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-09-18 6:20 ` Pavel Emelyanov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2007-09-17 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Emelyanov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, devel
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
> makes the code more readable.
Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we
breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names?
Cheers
Trond
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
>
> ---
>
> fs/nfs/file.c | 3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
> index 73ddd2e..7a07be1 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@ -605,8 +605,7 @@ static int nfs_lock(struct file *filp, i
> nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSLOCK);
>
> /* No mandatory locks over NFS */
> - if ((inode->i_mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == S_ISGID &&
> - fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
> + if (__mandatory_lock(inode) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
> return -ENOLCK;
>
> if (IS_GETLK(cmd))
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
2007-09-17 17:03 ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2007-09-18 6:20 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-18 13:27 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Emelyanov @ 2007-09-18 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trond Myklebust; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, devel
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
>> makes the code more readable.
>
> Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we
> breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names?
Sorry, I've forgot to change all the log - this is not a macro,
but a static inline function. The underscores are here, because
the mandatory_lock() one already exists and additionally checks
for "if (IS_MANDLOCK(inode))"
Thanks,
Pavel
> Cheers
> Trond
>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
>> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> fs/nfs/file.c | 3 +--
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
>> index 73ddd2e..7a07be1 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
>> @@ -605,8 +605,7 @@ static int nfs_lock(struct file *filp, i
>> nfs_inc_stats(inode, NFSIOS_VFSLOCK);
>>
>> /* No mandatory locks over NFS */
>> - if ((inode->i_mode & (S_ISGID | S_IXGRP)) == S_ISGID &&
>> - fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
>> + if (__mandatory_lock(inode) && fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
>> return -ENOLCK;
>>
>> if (IS_GETLK(cmd))
>>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks
2007-09-18 6:20 ` Pavel Emelyanov
@ 2007-09-18 13:27 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2007-09-18 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pavel Emelyanov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, devel
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 10:20 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 11:57 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> >> The __mandatory_lock(inode) macro makes the same check, but
> >> makes the code more readable.
> >
> > Could we please avoid using underscores in macros. Also, why are we
> > breaking the usual convention of capitalising macro names?
>
> Sorry, I've forgot to change all the log - this is not a macro,
> but a static inline function. The underscores are here, because
> the mandatory_lock() one already exists and additionally checks
> for "if (IS_MANDLOCK(inode))"
OK. I withdraw my objection then.
Cheers
Trond
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-09-18 13:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-09-17 7:57 [PATCH 5/5][NFS] Cleanup explicit check for mandatory locks Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-17 17:03 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-09-18 6:20 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2007-09-18 13:27 ` Trond Myklebust
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox