On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 02:44:05PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Ensure that we add/remove the dl_perfile under the inode->i_lock
Looks like maybe this addresses my question on the previous patch--in
which case it should really be merged with the previous patch for
bisectability?
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 85fcbc9ebd40..3656980b5d19 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -441,7 +441,9 @@ static void
> hash_delegation_locked(struct nfs4_delegation *dp, struct nfs4_file *fp)
> {
> dp->dl_stid.sc_type = NFS4_DELEG_STID;
> + spin_lock(&fp->fi_inode->i_lock);
> list_add(&dp->dl_perfile, &fp->fi_delegations);
> + spin_unlock(&fp->fi_inode->i_lock);
> list_add(&dp->dl_perclnt, &dp->dl_stid.sc_client->cl_delegations);
> }
>
> @@ -449,13 +451,19 @@ hash_delegation_locked(struct nfs4_delegation *dp, struct nfs4_file *fp)
> static void
> unhash_delegation(struct nfs4_delegation *dp)
> {
> + struct nfs4_file *fp = dp->dl_file;
> +
> spin_lock(&state_lock);
> list_del_init(&dp->dl_perclnt);
> - list_del_init(&dp->dl_perfile);
> list_del_init(&dp->dl_recall_lru);
> + if (!list_empty(&dp->dl_perfile)) {
> + spin_lock(&fp->fi_inode->i_lock);
> + list_del_init(&dp->dl_perfile);
> + spin_unlock(&fp->fi_inode->i_lock);
> + }
> spin_unlock(&state_lock);
> - nfs4_put_deleg_lease(dp->dl_file);
> - put_nfs4_file(dp->dl_file);
> + nfs4_put_deleg_lease(fp);
> + put_nfs4_file(fp);
> dp->dl_file = NULL;
> }
>
> --
> 1.9.0
>
--
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
