Re: [PATCH] filelock: add stubs for new functions when CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n

[Christian Brauner]

> Another thought too: "locks_" as a prefix is awfully generic. Might it be
> better to rename these new functions with a "filelock_" prefix instead?
> That would better distinguish to the casual reader that this is dealing
> with a file_lock object. I'm happy to respin the set if that's the
> consensus.

If it's just a rename then just point me to a branch I can pull. I don't
think it's worth resending just because you effectively did some variant
of s/lock_*/filelock_*/g

In any case, folded this one.