I think in this case we don't want to drop other caps. This basically
means we weren't able to maintain the desired level of reserves, but we
will continue to try to fill it periodically, and not reaching the desired
point is not a reason to throw out what we have. You'll note that the one
caller ignores the return value..
sage
On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, majianpeng wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ceph/caps.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/caps.c b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> index da0f9b8..626b0ec 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/caps.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> @@ -203,6 +203,11 @@ out_alloc_count:
> /* we didn't manage to reserve as much as we needed */
> pr_warning("reserve caps ctx=%p ENOMEM need=%d got=%d\n",
> ctx, need, have);
> + if (alloc) {
> + struct ceph_cap *tmp;
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(cap, tmp, &newcaps, caps_item)
> + kmem_cache_free(ceph_cap_cachep, cap);
> + }
> return ret;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
