From: Miklos Szeredi Subject: Re: [NLM] 2.6.27 broken Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:18:37 +0100 Message-ID: <1234210717.4965.133.camel@tucsk> References: <20081115132831.GA11329@janus> <20081120222731.GA591@fieldses.org> <20081128112447.GA25340@janus> <20081216173923.GE16388@fieldses.org> <1229456632.6023.1.camel@tucsk> <20081216201610.GE18928@fieldses.org> <20090204233348.GD20917@fieldses.org> <1233830829.4965.56.camel@tucsk> <20090205195203.GD9200@fieldses.org> <1233919798.4965.63.camel@tucsk> <20090209181036.GI10297@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Frank van Maarseveen , Linux NFS mailing list To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:41579 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751AbZBIUSk (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:18:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090209181036.GI10297@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:10 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:29:58PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 14:52 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:47:09AM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > But I think at least a comment in the code would be in order, or this > > > > same mistake might be made again. Also I think the original code flow > > > > is somewhat illogical. > > > > > > Yeah, I was literally just reverting the problematic lines of your > > > previous commit. I'd rather keep it that way for now, just as a clear > > > separation between the revert/bugfix and the cleanup. > > > > OK. > > > > > > How about this (it's essentially the same patch just a bit rearranged, > > > > the authorship is still yours of course ;) > > > > > > ... but would happily queue up the cleanup for 2.6.30. > > > > Cool. > > > > > Actually, I find it strange to have just that single case which breaks, > > > so that the code after the switch, which looks like it should be shared, > > > actually just applies to one case. I'd be inclined to just suck > > > everything up to "out:" into the -EAGAIN case and then make all cases > > > "goto out" (or, equivalently, break). > > > > Yes, but it needs to be sucked into the FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED case as well. > > It's just two lines and one of them is setting the error value, so it's > > not real duplication. > > Whoops, right, missed that; so, I'm applying the below, sending the > fixup in now, and queuing up the cleanup for 2.6.30 (with the blame > assigned back to you, hah--object or have me add your signed-off-by). No objections :) Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi BTW, one tip for stable patches: if you add a "Cc: stable@kernel.org" line to the Signed-off-by block, then it will ease the patch's way into the stable kernels as it will automatically be picked up by Greg's scripts when it hits the mainline tree. Thanks, Miklos