On Wed, 2017-08-23 at 16:11 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> 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);
> >
Why do we want to special case '0'? Surely we don't want to restart the
RPC call for any of the error cases if data->cancelled is set.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��w��� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
