On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:16:46AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:55:39AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > Hm, two problems: > > > - We introduce the possibility of fcntl(fd, F_SETLEASE, F_UNLCK) > > > failing with ENOMEM. > > > > splitt ->setlease into ->add_least and ->delete_lease. No need to pass > > in a structure for the later. No need to return one either. > > Sounds fine to me. > > > > > > - fasync_helper(.,.,1,.) sleeps. Argh. > > > > That's not new.. > > So we could do > > unlock_flocks(); > error = fasync_helper(fd, filp, 1, &fl->fl_fasync); > lock_flocks(); > > and say, hey, we didn't introduce any new bug there. But.... > > I don't know, maybe add a version of fasync_add_entry() that takes a > preallocated fasync_struct?? Or just convert the lock to a sleeping mutex. Now that we have adaptive spinning the horrible behaviour that Willy saw years ago might not be that bad any more. That'll need some benchmarking, though. -- 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
