linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 08/12] nfs: convert lock handling to use file_lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140910193402.GE4210@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:34:02 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	trond.myklebust@...marydata.com, smayhew@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/12] nfs: convert lock handling to use
 file_lock_context

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 03:28:10PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Yes, that's the downside of moving to multiple list_heads. Still, I
> think it's worth doing that even if we end up with the code a bit more
> verbose.
> 
> It may be best to consider moving some of this into helpers that live
> in locks.c. I really don't like having filesystems poke around in the
> intimate details of the file locking code as a general rule...

I was also wondering whether helpers like for_each_posix_lock() or
first_posix_lock() would be worth it.

--b.
--
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/