On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:02:27 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This looks reasonable to me. Am I right to assume this is just a > preparation for the state lock removal? As far as I can tell currently > all calls are under nfs4_lock_state(). > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > assuming it gets a proper patch description. > Yes, that's correct, and that's the case with pretty much all of the patches that add locking here. I can explicitly spell that out in every patch description but that may get tedious over >100 patches. Also, let's be careful about terminology here... What we're removing is the client_mutex (which has unfortunately named wrappers around it called nfs4_lock_state and nfs4_unlock_state). We have yet another spinlock called the "state_lock" which protects the nfs4_file hashes and such, as well as some of the delegation code. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
