Re: mmotm 2009-01-14-20-31 uploaded (gfs2)

From: Randy Dunlap
Date: Mon Jan 19 2009 - 12:56:53 EST

Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 09:05 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 09:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:06:23 -0800 Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> which is not ideal, but I don't see any easy way to avoid the #ifdef,
>>>>>>> Take a look in fs.h:
>>>>>>> #define generic_setlease(a, b, c) ({ -EINVAL; })
>>>>>>> If that wasn't a stupid macro, your code would have compiled and ran
>>>>>>> just as intended.
>>>>>> There doesn't seem to be an easy answer though. If I #define it to NULL,
>>>>>> that upsets other parts of the code that rely on that macro, and if I
>>>>>> turn it into a inline function which returns -EINVAL, then presumably I
>>>>>> can't take its address for my file_operations.
>>>>> No, gcc will allow &inline_func and out-of-line it if it is needed (AFAIK;
>>>>> I've seen a few cases of that).
>>>> yup. It measn that we'll get a separate private copy of the
>>>> generic_setlease() code in each compilation unit which takes its
>>>> address, but I don't think that would kill us.
>>>> The prevention is of course to put the stub function in a core kernel
>>>> .c file and export it to modules.
>>> Having looked into this in a bit more detail now, it seems that this
>>> particular function (generic_setlease) is one of a number appearing in
>>> fs.h which are replaced by macros in the case that CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING
>>> is not set.
>>> So rather than just do the one function, it seemed to make sense to me
>>> to make them all the same. So this uses inline functions as originally
>>> proposed. If you'd prefer that we don't inline them and instead have a
>>> fs/no-locks.c or something like that with stub functions in it, then I"m
>>> happy to revise the patch accordingly.
>> Acked-by/Tested-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Ok, Thanks. I'll send a proper patch to a suitable tree. Presumably the
> VFS tree would be best for this?

That sounds correct, but no guarantees.

>>> This patch passes my compile tests, modulo a small change that I need to
>>> make in GFS2 to suppress a warning (not attached). That seems to be
>>> related to yet another set of macros which appear only with
>>> CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING not set. Maybe I should update those to be inline
>>> functions as well....
>> You mean these? Probably should update them as well.
>> #else /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
>> #define locks_mandatory_locked(a) ({ 0; })
>> #define locks_mandatory_area(a, b, c, d, e) ({ 0; })
>> #define __mandatory_lock(a) ({ 0; })
>> #define mandatory_lock(a) ({ 0; })
>> #define locks_verify_locked(a) ({ 0; })
>> #define locks_verify_truncate(a, b, c) ({ 0; })
>> #define break_lease(a, b) ({ 0; })
>> #endif /* CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
> Yes, I'll do a patch for those as well then,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at