On 2/10/22 11:44 AM, Chuck Lever III wrote:
On Feb 10, 2022, at 2:41 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/10/22 6:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 09:21 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
Jeff, this table of locking rules seems out of date since 6109c85037e5
"locks: add a dedicated spinlock to protect i_flctx lists". Are any of
those callbacks still called with the i_lock? Should that column be
labeled "flc_lock" instead? Or is that even still useful information?
--b.
Yeah, that should probably be the flc_lock. I don't think we protect
anything in the file locking code with the i_lock anymore.
Will replace inode->i_lock with flc_lock in v13.
To be clear, if you're fixing the documentation, that would need
to be a clean-up patch before your 1/3. Thanks!
Got it Chuck,
Thanks,
-Dai
-Dai
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:52:07PM -0800, Dai Ngo wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst
index d36fe79167b3..57ce0fbc8ab1 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst
@@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ prototypes::
void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *); /* break_lease callback */
int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **, int);
bool (*lm_breaker_owns_lease)(struct file_lock *);
+ bool (*lm_lock_conflict)(struct file_lock *);
locking rules:
@@ -450,6 +451,7 @@ lm_grant: no no no
lm_break: yes no no
lm_change yes no no
lm_breaker_owns_lease: no no no
+lm_lock_conflict: no no no
====================== ============= ================= =========
--
Chuck Lever
