[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1009210910410.13310@cobra.newdream.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, gregf@...newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/locks.c: prepare for BKL removal
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net> 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?
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists