On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 13:38 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> If the wait for a LOCK operation is interrupted, and then the file is
> closed, the locks cleanup code will assume that no new locks will be added
> to the inode after it has completed. We already have a mechanism to detect
> if there was an interrupt, so let's use that to avoid recreating the local
> lock once the RPC completes.
>
nit: "if there was a signal"
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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 dbfa18900e25..5256f429c268 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -6100,7 +6100,7 @@ static void nfs4_lock_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
> case 0:
> renew_lease(NFS_SERVER(d_inode(data->ctx->dentry)),
> data->timestamp);
> - if (data->arg.new_lock) {
> + if (data->arg.new_lock && !data->cancelled) {
> data->fl.fl_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
> if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state->inode, &data->fl) < 0) {
> rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
Patch looks fine though:
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
