On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 21:28 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> Othweise client may send cap flush messages in wrong order.
>
"Otherwise"
> Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/ceph/caps.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/caps.c b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> index cd946bca4792..82cfb153d0f3 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/caps.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> @@ -2119,6 +2119,7 @@ static int try_flush_caps(struct inode *inode, u64 *ptid)
>
> retry:
> spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
> +retry_locked:
> if (ci->i_ceph_flags & CEPH_I_NOFLUSH) {
> spin_unlock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
> dout("try_flush_caps skipping %p I_NOFLUSH set\n", inode);
> @@ -2126,8 +2127,6 @@ static int try_flush_caps(struct inode *inode, u64 *ptid)
> }
> if (ci->i_dirty_caps && ci->i_auth_cap) {
> struct ceph_cap *cap = ci->i_auth_cap;
> - int used = __ceph_caps_used(ci);
> - int want = __ceph_caps_wanted(ci);
> int delayed;
>
> if (!session || session != cap->session) {
> @@ -2143,13 +2142,24 @@ static int try_flush_caps(struct inode *inode, u64 *ptid)
> goto out;
> }
>
> + if (ci->i_ceph_flags &
> + (CEPH_I_KICK_FLUSH | CEPH_I_FLUSH_SNAPS)) {
> + if (ci->i_ceph_flags & CEPH_I_KICK_FLUSH)
> + __kick_flushing_caps(mdsc, session, ci, 0);
> + if (ci->i_ceph_flags & CEPH_I_FLUSH_SNAPS)
> + __ceph_flush_snaps(ci, session);
> + goto retry_locked;
> + }
> +
> flushing = __mark_caps_flushing(inode, session, true,
> &flush_tid, &oldest_flush_tid);
>
> /* __send_cap drops i_ceph_lock */
> delayed = __send_cap(mdsc, cap, CEPH_CAP_OP_FLUSH, true,
> - used, want, (cap->issued | cap->implemented),
> - flushing, flush_tid, oldest_flush_tid);
> + __ceph_caps_used(ci),
> + __ceph_caps_wanted(ci),
> + (cap->issued | cap->implemented),
> + flushing, flush_tid, oldest_flush_tid);
>
> if (delayed) {
> spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
This set looks good to me (aside from typo in the commit message in this
patch). You can add this to all 3:
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
