From: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The rpc server does not require that service threads take the BKL.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/callback.c | 12 ------------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
Just noticed this while looking for something else.
If these BKL's were cut-and-pasted from lockd or older nfsd code under
the assumption that the generic rpc server code needed them: that
assumption was incorrect, and we should apply this patch.
(If there was some nfs-client-specific issue here, then ignore this
patch.)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/callback.c b/fs/nfs/callback.c
index 293fa05..e66ec5d 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/callback.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/callback.c
@@ -78,11 +78,6 @@ nfs4_callback_svc(void *vrqstp)
set_freezable();
- /*
- * FIXME: do we really need to run this under the BKL? If so, please
- * add a comment about what it's intended to protect.
- */
- lock_kernel();
while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
/*
* Listen for a request on the socket
@@ -104,7 +99,6 @@ nfs4_callback_svc(void *vrqstp)
preverr = err;
svc_process(rqstp);
}
- unlock_kernel();
return 0;
}
@@ -160,11 +154,6 @@ nfs41_callback_svc(void *vrqstp)
set_freezable();
- /*
- * FIXME: do we really need to run this under the BKL? If so, please
- * add a comment about what it's intended to protect.
- */
- lock_kernel();
while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
prepare_to_wait(&serv->sv_cb_waitq, &wq, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_lock_bh(&serv->sv_cb_lock);
@@ -183,7 +172,6 @@ nfs41_callback_svc(void *vrqstp)
}
finish_wait(&serv->sv_cb_waitq, &wq);
}
- unlock_kernel();
return 0;
}
--
1.6.0.4
--
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
