On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 16:34 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> > On 1 Feb 2017, at 19:49, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We don't really require that the parent be locked in order to update the
> > lease on a dentry. Lease info is protected by the d_lock. In the event
> > that the parent is not locked in ceph_fill_trace, and we have both
> > parent and target info, go ahead and update the dentry lease.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ceph/inode.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ceph/inode.c b/fs/ceph/inode.c
> > index 15e042a8d71f..87863f962d50 100644
> > --- a/fs/ceph/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ceph/inode.c
> > @@ -1345,6 +1345,16 @@ int ceph_fill_trace(struct super_block *sb, struct ceph_mds_request *req)
> > goto done;
> > }
> > req->r_dentry = dn; /* may have spliced */
> > + } else if (rinfo->head->is_dentry && rinfo->head->is_target) {
> > + if ((le32_to_cpu(rinfo->diri.in->cap.caps) & CEPH_CAP_FILE_SHARED) ||
> > + le32_to_cpu(rinfo->dlease->duration_ms)) {
> > + vino.ino = le64_to_cpu(rinfo->diri.in->ino);
> > + vino.snap = le64_to_cpu(rinfo->diri.in->snapid);
> > + update_dentry_lease(req->r_dentry, rinfo->dlease,
> > + session, req->r_request_started, &vino);
> > + } else {
> > + dout("%s: no dentry lease or dir cap\n", __func__);
> > + }
> > }
>
> I think checking rinfo->head->is_target is not needed here, because null dentry can also have lease.
> Besides, I think we need to check if rinfo->head->is_target matches d_really_is_negative(dn) and if
> the target inode matches d_inode(dn).
>
Yeah, I think you're right here. I'll respin this one.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
