From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:02:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:02:51 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:13322 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:01:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:08:22 +0000 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Juan Gomez Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Proposal for new lock ownership scheme to support NFS over distributed filesystems Message-ID: <20021031210822.N27461@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey, how about cc'ing either me or linux-fsdevel when discussing file locking in the future as described in MAINTAINERS? Your idea doesn't work because we need fl_owner to be the files_struct for local locks. It also doesn't work because IPv4 is not the only protocol which NFS runs over. -- Revolutions do not require corporate support.