On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 05:23:59PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2010, 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.
>
> That sounds like a good way to get rid of a lot of special cases, too.
>
> > > - fasync_helper(.,.,1,.) sleeps. Argh.
> >
> > That's not new..
>
> It comes back to the original problem with Bruce's patch though:
> fcntl_setlease wants to atomically add a lease or fail. If
> fasync_helper fails, we want to remove the lease that was
> just added before anyone can see it. At the very least we need
> to keep the flock from getting freed in another thread while
> we call fasync_helper without the lock.
>
> locks_delete_lock is also called with lock_flocks held and calls
> fasync_helper...
Yeah, but just the fasync_remove_entry() case.
It would really seem nicer to me if people called
fasync_{add,remove}_entry() instead of having this silly fasync_helper()
and making the reader remember what the third argument means.
--b.
--
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
