On Jul. 12, 2010, 21:09 +0300, "William A. (Andy) Adamson" <androsadamson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2010 01:34 AM, andros@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++
>>> fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>> fs/nfs/pnfs.h | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> index 6acebc3..f763746 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> @@ -5565,6 +5565,8 @@ static void pnfs_layoutcommit_release(void *lcdata)
>>> struct pnfs_layoutcommit_data *data =
>>> (struct pnfs_layoutcommit_data *)lcdata;
>>>
>>> + /* Matched by get_layout in pnfs_layoutcommit_inode */
>>> + put_layout(data->args.inode);
>>> put_rpccred(data->cred);
>>> pnfs_layoutcommit_free(lcdata);
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> index aa16e5d..d42c5da 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> @@ -354,6 +354,15 @@ put_layout_locked(struct pnfs_layout_type *lo)
>>> }
>>>
>>> void
>>> +put_layout(struct inode *inode)
>>> +{
>>> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>>> + put_layout_locked(NFS_I(inode)->layout);
>>> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>>> +
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void
>>> pnfs_layout_release(struct pnfs_layout_type *lo,
>>> struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segment *range)
>>> {
>>> @@ -1598,6 +1607,9 @@ pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(struct inode *inode, int sync)
>>> __clear_bit(NFS_INO_LAYOUTCOMMIT, &nfsi->layout->pnfs_layout_state);
>>> pnfs_get_layout_stateid(&data->args.stateid, nfsi->layout);
>>>
>>> + /* Reference for layoutcommit matched in pnfs_layoutcommit_release */
>>> + get_layout(NFS_I(inode)->layout);
>>> +
>>
>> Has of your rules this should be now called get_layout_locked
>
> OK
Andy, before you crank another version, I've already merged this patchset
with obvious fixes into my tree so it might be better to fix that up.
I also fixed a couple other less trivial bugs for which I'm going
to send patches soon, and I fixed up the obj and block layout alloc/free
methods to agree with the new API.
Benny
>
>
>>
>>> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>>>
>>> /* Set up layout commit args */
>>> @@ -1606,6 +1618,7 @@ pnfs_layoutcommit_inode(struct inode *inode, int sync)
>>> if (status) {
>>> /* The layout driver failed to setup the layoutcommit */
>>> put_rpccred(data->cred);
>>> + put_layout(inode);
>>
>> And it is really nice that put_layout takes an inode and get_layout takes an
>> struct layout_type.
>>
>>> goto out_free;
>>> }
>>> status = pnfs4_proc_layoutcommit(data, sync);
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.h b/fs/nfs/pnfs.h
>>> index 9b0fed4..e04b9d4 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.h
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.h
>>> @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ void pnfs_layout_release(struct pnfs_layout_type *, struct nfs4_pnfs_layout_segm
>>> void pnfs_set_layout_stateid(struct pnfs_layout_type *lo,
>>> const nfs4_stateid *stateid);
>>> void pnfs_destroy_layout(struct nfs_inode *);
>>> +void put_layout(struct inode *inode);
>>>
>>> #define PNFS_EXISTS_LDIO_OP(srv, opname) ((srv)->pnfs_curr_ld && \
>>> (srv)->pnfs_curr_ld->ld_io_ops && \
>>
>> I still think they can all go away.
>> What is the point of a layout without it's nfsi+inode. And who cares if we free the layout_type structure
>> 2 milliseconds before, and in the error case?
>>
>> Boaz
>> --
>> 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
