On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 18:54 -0400, Oleg Drokin wrote: > On Jun 14, 2016, at 6:52 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > I think I'd still prefer to have it unlock the mutex in the event that > > it's not going to use it after all. While that kind of thing is ok for > > now, it's stuff like that that can turn into a subtle source of bugs > > later. > > > > Also, I think I'd be more comfortable with this being split into (at > > least) two patches. Do one patch as a straight conversion from rwsem to > > mutex, and then another that changes the code to take the mutex before > > hashing the new stateid. > Ok, I guess that could be arranged too. > > And then there's this Bruce's patch to pull more stuff into the init_open_stateid Yeah, that seems like a good idea. We _really_ need an effort to simplify this code. OPEN handling is always messy, but the current code is really much messier than it should be. -- 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
