locks: reverse order of posix_locks_conflict() arguments

Browse source

The first argument to posix_locks_conflict() is meant to be a lock request,
and the second a lock from an inode's lock request.  It doesn't really
make a difference which order you call them in, since the only
asymmetric test in posix_lock_conflict() is the check whether the second
argument is a posix lock--and every caller already does that check for
some reason.

But may as well fix posix_test_lock() to call posix_locks_conflict()
with the arguments in the same order as everywhere else.

Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>

...

This commit is contained in:

J. Bruce Fields 2007-05-10 19:02:07 -04:00

parent bbf25010f1

commit b842e240f2

1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions

Show all changes Ignore whitespace when comparing lines Ignore changes in amount of whitespace Ignore changes in whitespace at EOL

Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2

fs/locks.c

View file