On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:42:18 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:02:20AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Change to using the clp->cl_lock for this. For now, there's a lot of > > cl_lock thrashing, but in later patches we'll eliminate that and close > > the potential races that can occur when releasing the cl_lock while > > walking the lists. For now, the client_mutex prevents those races. > > I'll have to look at those later patches, but in general I'd prefer > not to have an intermediate stage like this. Maybe just merge > the later cleanup in, maybe do some of the required cleanups before > even adding the new locking. > Thanks for the comments so far! FWIW, this set of patches needed to be respun anyway to deal with the nfs4_file hashing changes. I've incorporated most of your comments into the respun set, and I'll repost it once I get some confirmation from Bruce about the latest set of delegation patches that precede it. The one thing I didn't address is your comment above. Adding this locking is hairy enough that I think it's warranted to do it with an intermediate step like this. -- 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
