> > > > 1) if !FL_SLEEP, then return 0 if granted, -EAGAIN on contention > > > > 2) if FL_SLEEP and fl_grant == NULL, then return 0 if granted, block on > > > > contention > > > > 3) if FL_SLEEP and fl_grant != NULL, then return 0 if granted, on > > > > contention: > > > > a) either return -EINPROGRESS and call fl_grant when granted > > > > b) or return -EAGAIN and call fl_notify when the lock needs retrying > > > > > > I'd put it this way (after a quick check of the code to convince myself > > > I'm remembering this right...): > > > > > > 1) If FL_SLEEP, then return 0 if granted, and on contention either: > > > a) block, or > > > b) return -EAGAIN, and call fl_notify when the lock should be > > > retried. > > > > Gfs2 seems to return -EINPROGRESS regardless of the FL_SLEEP flag: > > Oops, you're right; in FL_SLEEP case fs/lockd/svclock.c:nlmsvc_lock() > returns NLM_LCK_BLOCKED. I believe it'll get an fl_grant() callback > after that and do a grant call back to the client, but I haven't > checked.... > > Note, as has been pointed out by Mark Snitzer > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.nfs/17801/), this limits the kind > of error reporting the filesystem can do--if it needs to block on the > initial lock call, it has to commit to queueing up, and eventually > granting, the lock. OK, but that AFAICS is a lock manager implementation issue, not an API issue. Which is important, but not as important as the API ;) > > > OK, but I haven't read your patch yet, apologies.... > > > > No problem. Here it is again with some cosmetic fixes and testing. > > Thanks! Ping me in a couple days if I haven't made any comments. From > a quick skim the GFS2 change and the error return change both seem > reasonable. > > I need to a real GFS2 testing setup.... (Did you test GFS2 locking > specifically?) No gfs2, only ext3. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
