On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:28:56AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 15 September 2010 22:42:03 J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > Looking over the server code.... The only code I see under the BKL is: > > > > - a few lease callbacks in fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c, none of which > > sleep at this point, so all should be fine under a spinlock or > > whatever we want. > > - fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:check_for_locks(), which explicitly takes > > the BKL itself. All it does, though, is walk the lock list > > for a given file and check whether any of them have a given > > owner. It would be trivial to put it under some other lock > > and/or move it to locks.c. > > Ok. In the version of the patch I sent out yesterday, I came to the > same conclusion and put both of these under lock_flocks(), which > is still the BKL but can be converted to a spinlock after we have > sorted out ceph and lockd. If you and others are fine with this patch, > I'll add it to my bkl/config series. > > Note that walking the i_flock list needs to use lock_flocks() > (or the BKL), not a private lock. I guess that's what you are saying > anyway, just making sure. Yes, that's fine. --b. -- 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
