On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 01:45:16 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Good catch! > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > > But maybe it's better to write the code so that the intent is obvious: > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > index f6b2a09..3c4c3d2 100644 > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c > @@ -3215,11 +3215,13 @@ alloc_init_open_stateowner(unsigned int strhashval, struct nfsd4_open *open, > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&oo->oo_close_lru); > spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock); > ret = find_openstateowner_str_locked(strhashval, open, clp); > - if (ret == NULL) { > - hash_openowner(oo, clp, strhashval); > - ret = oo; > - } else > + if (ret) { > nfs4_free_openowner(&oo->oo_owner); > + spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock); > + return ret; > + } > + > + hash_openowner(oo, clp, strhashval); > spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock); > return oo; > } Sure, that'd be fine too. Care to write up a changelog entry and send it to Bruce? I think that would likely apply just fine to stable kernels. -- 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