On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:49:12AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > We don't want to rely on the state_lock() for protection in the > case of NFSv4 open owners. Instead, we add a mutex that will > only be taken for NFSv4.0 state mutating operations, and > that will be released once the entire compound is done. > > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Looks reasonable to me, but doesn't this create a lock order reversal with the client_lock until it is removed? -- 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
