Re: fatfs locking

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> writes:

> So, this is the main issue, and I don't feel that you have addressed
> it at all.

Ok, thanks for your patience.  I don't mind adding an argument,
provided the caller always knows exactly which case is being invoked,
to tell diskfs_cached_lookup whether the lock is already held or not.
That is, I'm comfortable provided the caller always knows whether the
node is locked.

In other words, it should be described that the arg means "the caller
already has the node locked", and not that the arg means "don't lock
the node when you get it."

I believe this is entirely consistent with what you have suggested;
just please be sure to document it in such a way, so as not to imply
that it's ever legitimate to omit the locking.

Thomas