Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:41501 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753056Ab0J0Ri7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:38:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101027164606.GF6328@fieldses.org> References: <20101026164549.GD19445@fieldses.org> <20101027145538.GC6328@fieldses.org> <20101027145929.GA5788@infradead.org> <201010271723.59734.arnd@arndb.de> <20101027164606.GF6328@fieldses.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:32:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: nfsd changes for 2.6.37 To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Christoph Hellwig , Bryan Schumaker , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:12:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Something like the attached (UNTESTED!) perhaps? > > Makes sense to me. ?Testing.... So I found a buglet in the patch: the NOTE! It is very important that the FASYNC flag always match the state "is the filp on a fasync list". comment should be moved to be associated with "fasync_insert_entry()" rather than "fasync_add_entry()", since it's the insert-entry thing that does the actual FASYNC flag handling. But that incorrect comment placement shouldn't affect testing, obviously ;) Btw, who is going to collect these things assuming it passes testing? Arnd? You? I'll happily sign off on the fasync patch (with the comment movement) assuming it tests out ok, but there's all the other patches too that have been passed around. I really do want to get this into the merge window, because it would be a big shame if we couldn't effectively get rid of the BKL now just because of these kinds of smallish final details, so I'm just checking who wants to step up to the plate to collect it all together and make sure I have it? Linus