Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52432 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751989AbbLAHhV (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 02:37:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:37:18 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, tao.peng@primarydata.com, jeff.layton@primarydata.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] locks: new locks_mandatory_area calling convention Message-ID: <20151201073718.GA29495@lst.de> References: <1448563859-21922-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1448563859-21922-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20151130223830.GB31564@fieldses.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20151130223830.GB31564@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 05:38:30PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > + if (size < inode->i_size) { > > + return locks_mandatory_area(filp, size, inode->i_size - 1, > > + true); > > + } else { > > + return locks_mandatory_area(filp, inode->i_size, size - 1, > > + true); > > I feel like these callers would be just slightly more self-documenting > if that last parameter was F_WRLCK instead of true. Sure, I can change that forthe next version.