On 3/4/25 10:24 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 12:26 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Just set unhashed to false in the one case where we return that
>> explicitly, and drop the else.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 9 ++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> index a7bac93445e2fdbe743b77e66238d652094907cb..1f3e9d42fcd784ea8d101ad3549702a30dfe9058 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> @@ -7644,12 +7644,11 @@ static bool nfsd4_close_open_stateid(struct nfs4_ol_stateid *s)
>> list_for_each_entry(stp, &reaplist, st_locks)
>> nfs4_free_cpntf_statelist(clp->net, &stp->st_stid);
>> free_ol_stateid_reaplist(&reaplist);
>> - return false;
>> - } else {
>> - spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>> - free_ol_stateid_reaplist(&reaplist);
>> - return unhashed;
>> + unhashed = false;
>> }
>> + spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>> + free_ol_stateid_reaplist(&reaplist);
>> + return unhashed;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>>
>
> My apologies, Chuck. This patch has a bug in it. Can you drop it from
> nfsd-testing? I may or may not send a replacement.
Done.
--
Chuck Lever
