On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:27:23 -0800 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:34:17AM -0800, Jeff Layton wrote: > > ...instead of open-coding it and removing flock locks directly. This > > simplifies some coming interim changes in the following patches when > > we have different file_lock types protected by different spinlocks. > > It took me quite a while to figure out what's going on here, as this > adds a call to flock_lock_file, but it still keeps the old open coded > loop around, just with a slightly different WARN_ON. > Right. Eventually that open-coded loop (and the WARN_ON) goes away once leases get moved into i_flctx in a later patch. FWIW, there is some messiness involved in this patchset in the interim stages due to the need to keep things bisectable. Once all of the patches are applied, the result looks a lot cleaner. > I'd suggest keeping an open coded loop in locks_remove_flock, which > should both be more efficient and easier to review. > I don't know. On the one hand, I rather like keeping all of the lock removal logic in a single spot. On the other hand, we do take and drop the i_lock/flc_lock more than once with this scheme if there are both flock locks and leases present at the time of the close. Open coding the loops would allow us to do that just once. I'll ponder it a bit more for 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
