Hi, On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:18 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote: > > This patch uses the FL_SLEEP flag in struct file_lock to determine if > > the lock request is a blocking or non-blocking request. Before dlm was > > using IS_SETLKW() was being used which is not usable for lock requests > > coming from lockd when EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK inside the export flags > > is set. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/dlm/plock.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c > > index 0094fa4004cc..0c6ed5eeb840 100644 > > --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c > > +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c > > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ int dlm_posix_lock(dlm_lockspace_t *lockspace, u64 number, struct file *file, > > op->info.optype = DLM_PLOCK_OP_LOCK; > > op->info.pid = fl->fl_pid; > > op->info.ex = (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK); > > - op->info.wait = IS_SETLKW(cmd); > > + op->info.wait = !!(fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP); > > op->info.fsid = ls->ls_global_id; > > op->info.number = number; > > op->info.start = fl->fl_start; > > Not sure you really need the !!, but ok... > The wait is a byte value and FL_SLEEP doesn't fit into it, I already run into problems with it. I don't think somebody does a if (foo->wait == 1) but it should be set to 1 or 0. An alternative would be: ((fl->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP) == FL_SLEEP). I am not sure what the coding style says here. I think it's more important what the C standard says about !!(condition), but there are other users of this in the Linux kernel. :-/ - Alex
