Re: [PATCH 07/10] pnfs-submit: avoid race handling return on close

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

 



On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun. 14, 2010, 21:46 -0400, Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This prepares for the next patch.
>>
>> NOTE this doesn't really fix any current race, since
>> layout going to NULL is OK.  But layout changing from NULL to nonNULL
>> is a real race that is not fixed
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/nfs/nfs4state.c        |    5 +++--
>>  fs/nfs/pnfs.c             |   11 +++++++++++
>>  include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h |    2 ++
>>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>> index d5144bd..8a7a64c 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4state.c
>> @@ -594,11 +594,12 @@ static void __nfs4_close(struct path *path, struct nfs4_state *state,
>>       } else {
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_NFS_V4_1
>>               struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(state->inode);
>> +             int roc = nfs4_roc_iomode(nfsi);
>>
>> -             if (has_layout(nfsi) && nfsi->layout.roc_iomode) {
>> +             if (roc) {
>>                       struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment range;
>>
>> -                     range.iomode = nfsi->layout.roc_iomode;
>> +                     range.iomode = roc;
>>                       range.offset = 0;
>>                       range.length = NFS4_MAX_UINT64;
>>                       pnfs_return_layout(state->inode, &range, NULL,
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>> index 6def09c..bd11ec7 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>> @@ -321,6 +321,17 @@ pnfs_unregister_layoutdriver(struct pnfs_layoutdriver_type *ld_type)
>>  #define BUG_ON_UNLOCKED_LO(lo) do {} while (0)
>>  #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>>
>> +int nfs4_roc_iomode(struct nfs_inode *nfsi)
>> +{
>> +     int rv = 0;
>> +
>> +     spin_lock(&pnfs_spinlock);
>
> Why take the global lock rather than nfsi->lo_lock?
>
> Benny

You are right. That would be a copy-paste error.

Fred

>
>> +     if (has_layout(nfsi))
>> +             rv = nfsi->layout.roc_iomode;
>> +     spin_unlock(&pnfs_spinlock);
>> +     return rv;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void
>>  get_layout(struct pnfs_layout_type *lo)
>>  {
>> diff --git a/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h b/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>> index 0eb9b16..2ea131f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/nfs4_pnfs.h
>> @@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ layoutcommit_needed(struct nfs_inode *nfsi)
>>       return test_bit(NFS_INO_LAYOUTCOMMIT, &nfsi->pnfs_layout_state);
>>  }
>>
>> +int nfs4_roc_iomode(struct nfs_inode *nfs);
>> +
>>  #else /* CONFIG_NFS_V4_1 */
>>
>>  static inline bool
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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


[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