From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
These conditions would indeed indicate bugs in the code, but if we want
to hear about them we're likely better off warning and returning than
immediately dying while holding file_lock_lock.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
index bc8507c..db7258c 100644
--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
@@ -2554,9 +2554,14 @@ static void nfsd_break_deleg_cb(struct file_lock *fl)
struct nfs4_file *fp = (struct nfs4_file *)fl->fl_owner;
struct nfs4_delegation *dp;
- BUG_ON(!fp);
- /* We assume break_lease is only called once per lease: */
- BUG_ON(fp->fi_had_conflict);
+ if (!fp) {
+ WARN(1, "(%p)->fl_owner NULL\n", fl);
+ return;
+ }
+ if (fp->fi_had_conflict) {
+ WARN(1, "duplicate break on %p\n", fp);
+ return;
+ }
/*
* We don't want the locks code to timeout the lease for us;
* we'll remove it ourself if a delegation isn't returned
--
1.7.9.5
--
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
