On 29 May 2018, at 10:02, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 07:12 -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 signal, so let's use that to avoid recreating the local
>> lock
>> once the RPC completes. Also skip re-sending the LOCK operation for
>> the
>> various error cases if we were signaled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> index 47f3c273245e..1aba009a5ef8 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>> @@ -6345,32 +6345,36 @@ 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);
>> + if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state-
>>> inode, &data->fl) > 0)
>
> AFAICS this will never be true; It looks to me as if
> locks_lock_inode_wait() always returns '0' or a negative error value.
> Am I missing something?
No you're not missing anything, you're catching a typo, it should be:
+ if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state-> inode, &data->fl) < 0)
We want to break out of the switch and restart the rpc call if
locks_lock_inode_wait returns an error. Should I send another version or
can you fix it up?
Ben
--
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
