Hi I left the one call because I was unable to figure out what was being protected with the BKL in that section of the code. I figured I would leave it for the maintainers, since they know more about the code than I do. Bryan On 10/26/2010 04:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 26 October 2010 18:45:50 J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> Bryan Schumaker (1): >> lockd: Mostly remove BKL from the server > > Could you explain the "mostly" part of this commit? > > The commit message only says "This patch removes all > but one call to lock_kernel() from the server." This one > call is what keeps us from removing the BKL from fs/locks.c > because I can't tell if you still suspect that lockd > needs to lock against posix file locks or if there was > a different reason for leaving it in. > > I can't think of anything else that this might be locking > against because everything that might interact with lockd > now does not use the BKL any more and lockd is > single-threaded by definition. > > My guess is that the only thing that really needs to > lock_flocks() in lockd are the nlm_file_inuse and > nlm_traverse_locks functions because they traverse > the inode->i_flock list. All the exported functions > from fs/lock.c take care of locking in their own way > (possibly not lease_get_time, as I just discovered, > but that was never called under the BKL...). > > Arnd > -- > 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
