Re: [PATCH 0/3] cifs: some random patches for 2.6.31

On Mon, 25 May 2009 13:55:31 -0500
Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:56 PM, simo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 13:28 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > I was thinking that maybe we should send locks only when we explicitly
> > make them mandatory. As we are not respecting them on the client anyway
> > when they are not.
> 
> We have to send byte range locks to the server (by default). In particular
> to handle when multiple clients are locking the same file.  With some
> help from jra a few years ago, I think the mapping (advisory
> to mandatory, when mounted to windows) works about as
> well as we can do, and works for most posix apps.  There are some
> cases where users have to disable the duplicate lock enforcement
> on the client or the reverse (ie stop sending (mandotory) locks
> to the server) and so there are mount options to disable these.
> 

Agreed...

So in a general sense, are there any objections to the first two of
these patches? I'm assuming that patch #3 is OK, but I'm not clear on
whether you want to see changes the other two.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>