Sounds like a plan, but (a) if my .llseek = no_llseek and your .llseek =
default_llseek are not within diff context range, you (or whoever else
merges mine and yours) only get a compiler warning (Initializer entry
defined twice) rather than a merge conflict which couldn't be missed,
(b) there won't be a merge conflict in "BKL removal: mark remaining
users as 'depends on BKL'". (c) While I don't mind adding more visual
clutter to ieee1394/*, I prefer terse coding in firewire/*.
How about I put my nonseekable_open additions into a release branch and
send you a pull request after a few days exposure in linux-next? If you
do not plan to respin your patch queue soon or at all, I could even let
you pull a for-arnd branch with a semantically correct merge of yours
and mine.
General thoughts:
".llseek = NULL," so far meant "do the Right Thing on lseek() and
friends, as far as the fs core can tell". Shouldn't we keep it that
way? It's as close to other ".method = NULL," as it can get, which
either mean "silently skip this method if it doesn't matter" (e.g.
.flush) or "fail attempts to use this method with a fitting errno" (e.g.
.write).
Of course, as we have already seen with infiniband, firewire, ieee1394,
.llseek = NULL is ambiguous in practice. Does the driver really want to
use default_llseek, or should it rather use no_llseek and/or
nonseekable_open, or should it even implement a dummy_llseek() { return
0; } which avoids the BKL but preserves ABI behaviour? This needs to be
resolved for each and every case eventually, regardless of whether or
when your addition of .llseek = default_llseek enters mainline.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==-=- --== ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
