Ping on this one as well -- it was buried in a thread:
Ben
On 2 Aug 2017, at 7:27, 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 signal, so let's use that to avoid recreating the local
lock
once the RPC completes.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@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);
--
2.9.3
--
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
--
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
