From b842e240f27678aa5d71611cddc8d17a93fb0caf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 19:02:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] locks: reverse order of posix_locks_conflict() arguments 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" --- fs/locks.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index c795eaaf6c..51bae6227c 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -668,7 +668,7 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl) for (cfl = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_flock; cfl; cfl = cfl->fl_next) { if (!IS_POSIX(cfl)) continue; - if (posix_locks_conflict(cfl, fl)) + if (posix_locks_conflict(fl, cfl)) break; } if (cfl) -- 2.39.5