On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:06:34 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks good,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>
> Some comments on further work I'd like to see in this area, though:
>
> > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + time_out_leases(inode);
> > for (before = &inode->i_flock;
> > ((fl = *before) != NULL) && IS_LEASE(fl);
> > before = &fl->fl_next) {
> > if (fl->fl_file != filp)
> > continue;
> > - return fl->fl_lmops->lm_change(before, F_UNLCK);
> > + error = fl->fl_lmops->lm_change(before, F_UNLCK);
> > }
>
> We really should split a lm_release from lm_change, the way it is
> used is highly confusing. In addition I think a lot of code
> currently in lease_modify should move here instead, e.g. something like:
>
>
> if (fl->fl_file != filp)
> continue;
>
> fl = *before;
> fl->fl_type = F_UNLCK;
> lease_clear_pending(fl, F_UNLCK);
> locks_wake_up_blocks(fl);
> if (fl->fl_lmops->lm_delete)
> fl->fl_lmops->lm_delete(fl);
> locks_delete_lock(before, NULL);
>
> with lm_delete for user space leases as:
>
> static void lease_delete(struct file_lock *fl)
> {
> struct file *filp = fl->fl_file;
>
> f_delown(filp);
> filp->f_owner.signum = 0;
> fasync_helper(0, fl->fl_file, 0, &fl->fl_fasync);
> if (fl->fl_fasync != NULL) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "locks_delete_lock: fasync == %p\n",
> fl->fl_fasync);
> fl->fl_fasync = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> and a NULL implementation for delegations.
Good idea. I'll spin that up on the next iteration.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
