On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:05:49 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > No, I don't think so. AFAICT, the new mutex is always taken inside of the client_mutex until that point. -- 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
