Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:32:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:32:11 -0500 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:4561 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:32:08 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15829.12372.977319.366227@helicity.uio.no> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:35:16 +0100 To: Juan Gomez Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Non-blocking lock requests during the grace period In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1162 Lines: 35 > 2.-I also have this part enclosed in the if(resp->status == > NLM_LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD) as follows: > if(resp->status == NLM_LCK_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD) { > blah blah... > wait_on_grace: > if ((proc == NLMPROC_LOCK) && > !argp->block) > return -EAGAIN > } else { > .... > } > This with the intention to be very specific as to when we want > the return -EAGAIN to be called. The above means that you will still block on a F_GETLK query... In any case, why would we want to return -EAGAIN in one case where argp->block isn't set, and not in another? If there are cases where we want to block and where we are not currently setting argp->block (the only one I can think of might be NLMPROC_UNLOCK), then we should fix the caller. Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/