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
