On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:52:18 +0530 Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > GlobalSMBSesLock is now cifs_file_list_lock. Update comments to reflect this. > > OTOH, isn't there is a cleaner way instead of acquiring spin_lock and doing > spin_unlock in succession in cifs_oplock_break to ensure we already grabbed > the reference? Is this really needed? > > Signed-off-by: Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@xxxxxxx> I wish there were -- it's certainly ugly. We need to make sure we have references held for the oplock break workqueue job. Typically, we'd take those references first and then queue the work. If something goes wrong however and we can't queue that job, then we'd have to ensure that we put those references. There's a problem here though, is_valid_oplock_break is run in cifsd thread. If we end up putting the references in this context, we can end up tearing things down and doing blocking SMB calls. If cifsd does that, it'll deadlock. We could (in principle) add a completion variable or something for this, but the lock/unlock works just as well for this purpose. Comment fix looks fine: Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
