The NFS4CLNT_LAYOUTRECALL tests in pnfs_layout_process and
pnfs_update_layout are redundant.
In the case of a bulk layout recall, we're always testing for
the NFS_LAYOUT_BULK_RECALL flay anyway.
In the case of a file or segment recall, the call to
pnfs_set_layout_stateid() updates the layout_header 'barrier'
sequence id, which triggers the test in pnfs_layoutgets_blocked()
and is less race-prone than NFS4CLNT_LAYOUTRECALL anyway.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 6 ++----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
index a534216..9c19f92 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
@@ -966,8 +966,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
}
/* Do we even need to bother with this? */
- if (test_bit(NFS4CLNT_LAYOUTRECALL, &clp->cl_state) ||
- test_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_BULK_RECALL, &lo->plh_flags)) {
+ if (test_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_BULK_RECALL, &lo->plh_flags)) {
dprintk("%s matches recall, use MDS\n", __func__);
goto out_unlock;
}
@@ -1048,8 +1047,7 @@ pnfs_layout_process(struct nfs4_layoutget *lgp)
}
spin_lock(&ino->i_lock);
- if (test_bit(NFS4CLNT_LAYOUTRECALL, &clp->cl_state) ||
- test_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_BULK_RECALL, &lo->plh_flags)) {
+ if (test_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_BULK_RECALL, &lo->plh_flags)) {
dprintk("%s forget reply due to recall\n", __func__);
goto out_forget_reply;
}
--
1.7.7.6
--
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
