On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04:14AM -0400, bfields wrote:
> Whoops, yes, looks like a good fix.
>
> I'm not convinced of the need for the recall_lock here for reasons given
> before. Could you just drop the recall_lock here and resend?
Actually never mind I've done that on my local tree. I'll wait to push
it out till you've had a chance to object.
--b.
>
> --b.
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:39:12AM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> > [use list_splice_init]
> > Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > index a403502..a66b0ad 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> > @@ -1129,6 +1129,13 @@ static struct nfs4_client *alloc_client(struct xdr_netobj name)
> > dp = list_entry(reaplist.next, struct nfs4_delegation, dl_recall_lru);
> > destroy_delegation(dp);
> > }
> > + spin_lock(&recall_lock);
> > + list_splice_init(&clp->cl_revoked, &reaplist);
> > + spin_unlock(&recall_lock);
> > + while (!list_empty(&reaplist)) {
> > + dp = list_entry(reaplist.next, struct nfs4_delegation, dl_recall_lru);
> > + destroy_revoked_delegation(dp);
> > + }
> > while (!list_empty(&clp->cl_openowners)) {
> > oo = list_entry(clp->cl_openowners.next, struct nfs4_openowner, oo_perclient);
> > release_openowner(oo);
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
> > --
> > 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
--
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
