> Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit
quoted text
> that claimed just to be shuffling code around.

Another complaint about this series: using EINPROGRESS to signal
asynchronous locking looks really fishy.  How does the filesystem
know, that the caller wants to do async locking?  How do we make sure,
that the filesystem (like fuse or 9p, which "blindly" return the error
from the server) doesn't return EINPROGRESS even when it's _not_ doing
an asynchronous lock?

I think it would have been much cleaner to have a completely separate
interface for async locking, instead of trying to cram that into
f_op->lock().

Would that be possible to fix now?  Or at least make EINPROGRESS a
kernel-internal error value (>512), to make it that it has a special
meaning for the _kernel only_?

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html