Return-Path: From: NeilBrown To: Jeff Layton , Trond Myklebust , Anna Schumaker Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:59:28 +1100 Cc: Benjamin Coddington , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] NFS: remove l_pid field from nfs_lockowner In-Reply-To: <1476271705.2541.8.camel@redhat.com> References: <147623977637.19592.12766016823334433969.stgit@noble> <147623995844.19592.4907099762700740448.stgit@noble> <1476271705.2541.8.camel@redhat.com> Message-ID: <87insx18dr.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-ID: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain On Wed, Oct 12 2016, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Looks ok. For my own knowledge though, in what situations would you have > the same files pointer but a different tgid? If you call clone(2) passing CLONE_FILES (so get the same files pointer) but not CLONE_THREAD (so different thread-group). Definitely possible, probably not useful. > > Acked-by: Jeff Layton Thanks, NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJX/sBRAAoJEDnsnt1WYoG5qtoP/j/ao3lAp2QmD+10xJ5fEcg0 F0gyDY4b1+325y6nfdCPmxLIXwF6u7UCRiR4kV7kOnquQmIiyxBaSdRVcWfwr4J0 //Ofd/OF3o5tTnnxiRrOLbqovHEUBMP1vU/E5VP+tOzmh9+VBA66lm0ekZhja3PC QU4YvoinmFcAS2HX5u4ORaJ7yXMgXuFdK6AmVOWy5CWlaU8VEdLavXUhnLZIRlBU 5LrDV7h6GcN9KYgycgNM+Xqo4yST3+OZ3vqt19n04SQ9Es2fX5Nb1g+ahlad+aCr pogb7EanG7wYh0ekE/I80LAZkQSW3+NxqpaesD0Tw2v6Twa3xsULBRKCJfe7zofw 678unNM/JvBucOR+qGy0UmaNW89eqi69JigvRJSJm7Y8gAs6QF6Ikz5YnbWA3RIA N3ca6KLynu+cf8fnxmn2IkFIDVIvep8/jtMa+ksr2Y+nZFA8ySLuFYhC5QE+PyIB nwYQMSmivy8lH5iRzfuP0rI4vJ7Lb7lv0YGP7MRvpD0eD/GjZdUxDuiv4V5uoYoF CF6Kv2J2f3+z5IvolKdkxO85J6mHE3fpFRlUOkXh0QOY9NrnNhOOwtzb2oOegIj8 LshNS7KqYo7oGoX2hc+HvWhapnAG+R1x2Tme/KdmILBxyzU5h0sDpN+b8z1ielwf 2ZQaGhGvY5EX7PIh6BVi =DyM7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--