On 11/28/2012 11:57 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:56:42AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:49:53AM -0500, Bryan Schumaker wrote: >>> On 11/28/2012 11:47 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:34:40AM -0500, Bryan Schumaker wrote: >>>>> On 11/28/2012 11:29 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:35:12AM -0500, bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>>> From: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I added in a generic for-each loop that takes a pass over the >>>>>>> client_lru list and calls some function. The next few patches will >>>>>>> update other operations to use this function as well. A value of 0 >>>>>>> still means "forget everything that is found". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@xxxxxxxxxx> --- >>>>>>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 18 >>>>>>> insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c index >>>>>>> 050a35e..07abca5 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c +++ >>>>>>> b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c @@ -4591,19 +4591,32 @@ >>>>>>> nfs4_check_open_reclaim(clientid_t *clid, bool sessions, struct >>>>>>> nfsd_net *nn) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_NFSD_FAULT_INJECTION >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -void nfsd_forget_clients(u64 num) +u64 nfsd_forget_client(struct >>>>>>> nfsd_net *nn, struct nfs4_client *clp, u64 max) >>>>>> >>>>>> It doesn't look like you really need nfsd_net? >>>>> >>>>> Not for this, but I find locks through the nn->ownerstr_hashtable >>>>> since the nfs4_client doesn't have a "cl_locks" list similar to >>>>> "cl_openowners" (unless there is something I'm missing...?). >>>> >>>> That's because lockowners are all reachable from openowners (e.g. see >>>> how it's done in >>>> release_openowner->unhash_openowner->release_open_stateid->unhash_open_stateid->release_stateid_lockowners. >>>> Yeah, it's a little tangled.). >>>> >>>> Alternatively you can get to the network namespace from the client >>>> (clp->net). >>> >>> Both are good to know! I'll look at getting lockowners from openowners first. >> >> OK. I've also updated my for-3.8 with more of Stanislav's >> patches--doesn't look like there should be any interesting new >> conflicts, but please check. I've got something with multiple levels of list_for_each() loops that I'm attempting to unroll. I just noticed that I've been releasing lock owners and open owners this whole time. I wonder if it would be better to release lock and open stateids instead? - Bryan > > Oh, and maybe you can respin with that last bugfix folded in to the > right place, if that makes sense? > > --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
