On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 09:40:24PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > The irritating thing is that the only lease user I understand is the > nfsd code, and it doesn't want this lease-merging behavior; the only > reason that fl_change is there is so it can just turn this case into an > error every time. Yes. > And I have no idea what the requirements are of any other users: do > leases behave like this on purpose, or was it just an arbitrary choice, > and does anyone depend on it now? Adding Willy and Stephen to the Cc list as they wrote the code. > In the end maybe it would be better just to leave leases as they are and > define a new lock type for nfsd. > > We'd probably have to do that eventually anyway, and it'd save me trying > to guess what the lease semantics are supposed to be.... I'd rather see both leases and the nfs4 delegations detangled from the locks.c code. It's far too much of a mess already anyway. > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] locks: fix leak on merging leases > > We must also free the passed-in lease in the case it wasn't used because > an existing lease was upgrade/downgraded or already existed. > > Note the nfsd caller doesn't care because it's fl_change callback > returns an error in those cases. The patch looks good to me. Care to feed it to Linus? -- 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
