On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Commit d5b9026a67 ([PATCH] knfsd: locks: flag NFSv4-owned locks) > using fl_lmops field in file_lock for checking nfsd4 lockowner. > > But, commit 1a747ee0cc (locks: don't call ->copy_lock methods > on return of conflicting locks) causes the fl_lmops of conflock > for nfsd4_lock always be NULL. > > Also, commit 0996905f93 (lockd: posix_test_lock() should not call > locks_copy_lock()) caused the fl_lmops of conflock for nfsd4_lockt > always be NULL too. > > So that, nfsd4 lockowner for it always be NULL too. > > This patch re-coping the fl_lmops to conflock. > > Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/locks.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index 717fbc4..cc1219a 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, const struct file_lock *fl) > new->fl_start = fl->fl_start; > new->fl_end = fl->fl_end; > new->fl_ops = NULL; > - new->fl_lmops = NULL; > + new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(__locks_copy_lock); > > @@ -290,7 +290,6 @@ void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) > __locks_copy_lock(new, fl); > new->fl_file = fl->fl_file; > new->fl_ops = fl->fl_ops; > - new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops; > > locks_copy_private(new, fl); > } > -- No. There is a very good reason why we separate __locks_copy_lock and locks_copy_private(). We don't want to have anyone calling notifiers etc for copies of locks. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData trond.myklebust@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
