"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 07:57:26PM -0500, Andrew Elble wrote: >> The use of the st_mutex has been confusing the validator. Use the >> proper nested notation so as to not produce warnings. > > Looking around, the usual pattern for simple nesting seems to be to use > just mutex_lock() for the outer lock (equivalent to > mutex_lock_nested(0)), and mutex_lock_nested(., SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING) > for the inner lock. > > Or we could define a new LOCK_STATEID_MUTEX, assuming the rule here is > "lock stateid's are locked after open stateid's". Just a question of > might be simpler to understand. I'm okay with whatever you think is best here - my thought was that the mutex_lock_nested(0) called more attention to how it was working given that acquiring that lock class the second time is now a little bit more hidden in nfsd4_lock_ol_stateid(). Thanks, Andy -- Andrew W. Elble aweits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead Rochester Institute of Technology PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912 -- 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
