The original text in RFC3530 was terribly confusing since it conflated
lockowners and lock stateids. RFC3530bis clarifies that you must use
open_to_lock_owner when there is no lock state for that file+lockowner
combination.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index db9d98eda07b..f12ded041a42 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -5611,7 +5611,7 @@ static void nfs4_lock_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
if (nfs_wait_on_sequence(data->arg.lock_seqid, task) != 0)
goto out_wait;
/* Do we need to do an open_to_lock_owner? */
- if (!(data->arg.lock_seqid->sequence->flags & NFS_SEQID_CONFIRMED)) {
+ if (!test_bit(NFS_LOCK_INITIALIZED, &data->lsp->ls_flags)) {
if (nfs_wait_on_sequence(data->arg.open_seqid, task) != 0) {
goto out_release_lock_seqid;
}
--
2.1.0
--
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
