On 7/8/2014 00:46, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:13:49 +0800
> Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 21 ++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> index 1b5afc1..abb2d81 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
>> @@ -4815,11 +4815,9 @@ nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
>> struct nfsd4_release_lockowner *rlockowner)
>> {
>> clientid_t *clid = &rlockowner->rl_clientid;
>> - struct nfs4_stateowner *sop = NULL, *tmp;
>> + struct nfs4_stateowner *sop;
>> struct nfs4_lockowner *lo;
>> struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp;
>> - struct xdr_netobj *owner = &rlockowner->rl_owner;
>> - unsigned int hashval = ownerstr_hashval(clid->cl_id, owner);
>> __be32 status;
>> struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(SVC_NET(rqstp), nfsd_net_id);
>>
>> @@ -4833,24 +4831,13 @@ nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp,
>> goto out;
>>
>> status = nfserr_locks_held;
>> -
>> - /* Find the matching lock stateowner */
>> - list_for_each_entry(tmp, &nn->ownerstr_hashtbl[hashval], so_strhash) {
>> - if (tmp->so_is_open_owner)
>> - continue;
>> - if (same_owner_str(tmp, owner, clid)) {
>> - sop = tmp;
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> -
>> - /* No matching owner found, maybe a replay? Just declare victory... */
>> - if (!sop) {
>> + lo = find_lockowner_str(clid, &rlockowner->rl_owner, nn);
>> + if (!lo) {
>> status = nfs_ok;
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - lo = lockowner(sop);
>> + sop = &lo->lo_owner;
>> /* see if there are still any locks associated with it */
>> list_for_each_entry(stp, &sop->so_stateids, st_perstateowner) {
>> if (check_for_locks(stp->st_file, lo))
>
> I'd rather we not change this just yet. While I agree with you and
> Christoph that this code needs some cleanup, this patch will conflict
> with some later changes that I have queued. Can we hold off on this
> particular patch for now, and reconsider it after the rest of the
> client_mutex removal series has been merged? I don't think it'll be
> needed at that point.
Got it.
I will resend this patch after Bruce merging all the client_mutex series.
Thanks,
Kinglong Mee
--
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
