On 2011-07-21 15:34, Jim Rees wrote:
> From: Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Signed-off-by: Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> [pnfsblock: fix bug getting pnfs_layout_type in translate_devid().]
> Signed-off-by: Tao Guo <guotao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Jingwang <Jingwang.Zhang@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <benny@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.h | 6 +++++
> fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayoutdev.c | 8 +++++++
> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> index 3afe363..1858743 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.c
> @@ -115,16 +115,40 @@ static struct pnfs_layout_hdr *bl_alloc_layout_hdr(struct inode *inode,
> return &bl->bl_layout;
> }
>
> -static void
> -bl_free_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg)
> +static void bl_free_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg)
> {
> + dprintk("%s enter\n", __func__);
> + kfree(lseg);
> }
>
> -static struct pnfs_layout_segment *
> -bl_alloc_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
> - struct nfs4_layoutget_res *lgr, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +/* We pretty much ignore lseg, and store all data layout wide, so we
> + * can correctly merge.
> + */
> +static struct pnfs_layout_segment *bl_alloc_lseg(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
> + struct nfs4_layoutget_res *lgr,
> + gfp_t gfp_flags)
> {
> - return NULL;
> + struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg;
> + int status;
> +
> + dprintk("%s enter\n", __func__);
> + lseg = kzalloc(sizeof(*lseg), gfp_flags);
> + if (!lseg)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + status = nfs4_blk_process_layoutget(lo, lgr, gfp_flags);
> + if (status) {
> + /* We don't want to call the full-blown bl_free_lseg,
> + * since on error extents were not touched.
> + */
> + /* STUB - we really want to distinguish between 2 error
please use "FIXME:" or "TODO:" to label further work that needs to be done.
The latter part of the second comment actually contradicts the first one
if I understand it correctly. Is the code exposed to this error case where the lo
data structure is hosed? When does it happen, what is the risk?
Benny
> + * conditions here. This lseg failed, but lo data structures
> + * are OK, or we hosed the lo data structures. The calling
> + * code probably needs to distinguish this too.
> + */
> + kfree(lseg);
> + return ERR_PTR(status);
> + }
> + return lseg;
> }
>
> static void
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.h b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.h
> index 08b4d6f..7dab978 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.h
> +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayout.h
> @@ -96,6 +96,12 @@ static inline struct pnfs_block_layout *BLK_LO2EXT(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo)
> return container_of(lo, struct pnfs_block_layout, bl_layout);
> }
>
> +static inline struct pnfs_block_layout *
> +BLK_LSEG2EXT(struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg)
> +{
> + return BLK_LO2EXT(lseg->pls_layout);
> +}
> +
> struct bl_dev_msg {
> int status;
> uint32_t major, minor;
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayoutdev.c b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayoutdev.c
> index 7e1377f..64da33a 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayoutdev.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/blocklayoutdev.c
> @@ -189,3 +189,11 @@ out:
> kfree(msg.data);
> return rv;
> }
> +
> +int
> +nfs4_blk_process_layoutget(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
> + struct nfs4_layoutget_res *lgr, gfp_t gfp_flags)
> +{
> + /* STUB */
> + return -EIO;
> +}
--
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
