On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:13:21AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > OK. So the correct fix here should really be applied to fcntl_setlk(). > > > > > There is absolutely no reason why we should be looping at all if the > > > > > filesystem has a ->lock() method. > > > > > > > > > > In fact, this looping behaviour was introduced recently in commit > > > > > 7723ec9777d9832849b76475b1a21a2872a40d20. > > > > > > > > Apologies, that was indeed a behavioral change introduced in a commit > > > > that claimed just to be shuffling code around. > > > > > > Yeah, that patch looks totally wrong. It's not generally a good idea > > > to do a loop where the exit condition depends on something you don't > > > control. And error values from filesystem methods are typically like > > > that. For example with fuse, the error code could come from an > > > unprivileged userspace process. > > > > > > I didn't realize this aspect of the bug previously, because I > > > concentrated on the lockd inconsistency. > > > > So, does this patch on its own fix the problem you saw? > > Yes. With the patch applied, the test program returns "lockf: > Resource temporarily unavailable" instead of hanging. OK, thanks! --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
