Re: [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11 Sep 2024, at 9:24, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Tue, 2024-09-10 at 12:56 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2024, at 11:45, Jeff Layton wrote:
>>
>>> Good catch. Yeah, I think that probably should have been an &&
>>> condition. IOW:
>>>
>>> 	if (nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op->lock &&
>>>             !export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
>>>
>>
>> Ah Jeff, thanks for confirming - there's been a bunch of changes in there that
>> made me uncertain.  I can send a patch for this, I'd like to rename
>> export_op_support_safe_async_lock to something like fs_can_defer_lock
>> (suggestions) and put the test in there.
>
> Actually, I take it back. The only callers that set
> export_op_support_safe_async_lock have ->lock as non-NULL, so that
> won't change anything, in practice.

*nod*

In trying to conjoin the export flag test with the f_op->lock test, I'm just
making a huge mess of layering violations.  The changes for NFSD are terrible.

Seems like we want an FOP_ flag for this, I might ask for one.  Wouldn't
other users like FUSE be interested?

Ben





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux