From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AD3F221FB8 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 13:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748869753; cv=none; b=oQdWo8pXQsG8e3ocISxUK3bVXrguz02Nwizc50lstKQnwdd2veUfHCQYpdjk8KtIAkQTMgyhPN6bONF5CctBCVxmx9rQ3WCNUJ8uvk7FlB0f9MJyX6PIx0rV4s4l//vcy4kTt+dAwgLnM2Yva2W4+Xhb47Bp4w9QIK00UlUdrfQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748869753; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2U/rqDTkSEhF3kVkNcn14qr3OQRG+JbH96DVpplAJUI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=bYgGyjXOWpGaPN6DsalvWJo0S6WP6Z/UBbLaocEOQH0JfzNG9zbm7snbjnBUzf5iCUhtaPSTK/pPN8PGW3qhmH2XL4HRu1c8AOQZeANYgu4jRHQa7yEuyISyIG04eESLnXXdOIbWwIBJ1WWtO9lsPZA8wSG6+6b9aKQgr8jvCMM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=CDQOg/Ff; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="CDQOg/Ff" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1748869750; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=2U/rqDTkSEhF3kVkNcn14qr3OQRG+JbH96DVpplAJUI=; b=CDQOg/FfPrAoBZSq1VuTceoHzid6zJxo6FrRlQfDh8oTMBo+0TOOTnPzxIVEABnrn9u3xW iI5zTaYJVFkqIVLQx5VrbDJmmHG2TAmuGWCQn263kXbWVGIeYpT7vA+9G57bac6AdWuw1o Ck9qtT2Isppzh6QH2ZMb1i9knsD8GOU= Received: from mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-101-J6k_oaR1OLqL6Z52PrwNhg-1; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:09:07 -0400 X-MC-Unique: J6k_oaR1OLqL6Z52PrwNhg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: J6k_oaR1OLqL6Z52PrwNhg_1748869745 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D60F19560AE; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 13:09:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.37.1] (unknown [10.22.58.2]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCD4C18001D8; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 13:09:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Benjamin Coddington To: Jeff Layton Cc: Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , Jan Kara , Chuck Lever , Alexander Aring , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] filelock: add new locks_wake_up_waiter() helper Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 09:09:01 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20250602-filelock-6-16-v1-1-7da5b2c930fd@kernel.org> References: <20250602-filelock-6-16-v1-1-7da5b2c930fd@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 On 2 Jun 2025, at 7:58, Jeff Layton wrote: > Currently the function that does this takes a struct file_lock, but > __locks_wake_up_blocks() deals with both locks and leases. Currently > this works because both file_lock and file_lease have the file_lock_core > at the beginning of the struct, but it's fragile to rely on that. > > Add a new locks_wake_up_waiter() function and call that from > __locks_wake_up_blocks(). > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton Looks good, Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington Ben