Re: [PATCH] fs/locks.c: prepare for BKL removal

[Sage Weil]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 September 2010 18:12:07 Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the easiest thing is to leave Ceph out of this stage of your 
> > > > series, I'll switch lock_kernel() to lock_flocks() once that exists 
> > > > upstream.  Unless there is a better way? 
> > > 
> > > Maybe someone could write a trivial implementation of lock_flocks() (i.e.
> > > one that does not make any changes to behaviour) and ask Linus to take it
> > > now in preparation for the next merge window (he has done that before).
> > > That way, more of this could be put into individual other trees and avoid
> > > more conflicts ...
> > 
> > This sounds like the easiest solution to me.  Something as simple as
> > 
> > #define lock_flocks lock_kernel
> > #define unlock_flocks unlock_kernel
> > 
> > in fs.h?
> 
> Sounds fine to me. I don't think it's necessary but if you prefer to do
> it, you can have my Ack.

Okay, the lock/unlock_flocks() stubs on in Linus' tree now, and the Ceph 
for-next branch is rebased and updated to fix the memory allocations and 
switch to the new interface.

Unfortunately you still need to #include smp_lock.h for now since the 
stubs are just #defines, so we'll need to remember to clean that up later.

sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/