On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 03:03:32PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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. What are you thinking of? > 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? Yep, will do. --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
