在 2020/7/1 6:34, NeilBrown 写道:
On Tue, Jun 30 2020, yangerkun wrote:
Ping...
在 2020/6/24 15:10, yangerkun 写道:
The caller of cifs_posix_lock_set will do retry(like
fcntl_setlk64->do_lock_file_wait) if we will wait for any file_lock.
So the retry in cifs_poxis_lock_set seems duplicated, remove it to
make a cleanup.
If cifs_posix_try_lock() returns FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED (which it might
after your patch), then cifs_setlk() will check the return value:
if (!rc || rc < 0)
return rc;
These tests will fail (as FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED is 1) and so it will
continue on as though the lock was granted.
So I think your patch is wrong.
However I think your goal is correct. cifs shouldn't be waiting.
No other filesystem waits when it gets FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED.
So maybe try to fix up your patch.
Yes, we should check FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED in cifs_setlk after this patch.
Also we may change 'int rc = 1;' exists in cifs_posix_lock_set since
FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED equals to 1.
I will send a v2 and thanks a lot for your review!
Thanks,
Kun.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Signed-off-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/cifs/file.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
index 9b0f8f33f832..2c9c24b1805d 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -1162,7 +1162,6 @@ cifs_posix_lock_set(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock)
if ((flock->fl_flags & FL_POSIX) == 0)
return rc;
-try_again:
cifs_down_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
if (!cinode->can_cache_brlcks) {
up_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
@@ -1171,13 +1170,6 @@ cifs_posix_lock_set(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock)
rc = posix_lock_file(file, flock, NULL);
up_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
- if (rc == FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED) {
- rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait,
- list_empty(&flock->fl_blocked_member));
- if (!rc)
- goto try_again;
- locks_delete_block(flock);
- }
return rc;
}
