Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2022 09:51:35 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] filelock: move file locking definitions to separate header file | From | Joseph Qi <> |
| |
Hi,
On 11/21/22 4:59 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > The file locking definitions have lived in fs.h since the dawn of time, > but they are only used by a small subset of the source files that > include it. > > Move the file locking definitions to a new header file, and add the > appropriate #include directives to the source files that need them. By > doing this we trim down fs.h a bit and limit the amount of rebuilding > that has to be done when we make changes to the file locking APIs. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> > --- > fs/9p/vfs_file.c | 1 + > fs/afs/internal.h | 1 + > fs/attr.c | 1 + > fs/ceph/locks.c | 1 + > fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 1 + > fs/cifs/cifsglob.h | 1 + > fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 1 + > fs/cifs/file.c | 1 + > fs/cifs/smb2file.c | 1 + > fs/dlm/plock.c | 1 + > fs/fcntl.c | 1 + > fs/file_table.c | 1 + > fs/fuse/file.c | 1 + > fs/gfs2/file.c | 1 + > fs/inode.c | 1 + > fs/ksmbd/smb2pdu.c | 1 + > fs/ksmbd/vfs.c | 1 + > fs/ksmbd/vfs_cache.c | 1 + > fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 1 + > fs/lockd/netns.h | 1 + > fs/locks.c | 1 + > fs/namei.c | 1 + > fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 1 + > fs/nfs_common/grace.c | 1 + > fs/nfsd/netns.h | 1 + > fs/ocfs2/locks.c | 1 + > fs/ocfs2/stack_user.c | 1 +
Seems it misses the related changes in: fs/ocfs2/stackglue.c
Thanks, Joseph
> fs/open.c | 1 + > fs/orangefs/file.c | 1 + > fs/proc/fd.c | 1 + > fs/utimes.c | 1 + > fs/xattr.c | 1 + > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 1 + > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 1 + > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 1 + > include/linux/filelock.h | 428 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/fs.h | 421 ------------------------------------- > include/linux/lockd/xdr.h | 1 + > 38 files changed, 464 insertions(+), 421 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 include/linux/filelock.h > > Unless anyone has objections, I'll plan to merge this in via the file > locking tree for v6.3. I'd appreciate Acked-bys or Reviewed-bys from > maintainers, however. >
| |