On Thu, 2022-02-10 at 09:21 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Jeff, this table of locking rules seems out of date since 6109c85037e5 > "locks: add a dedicated spinlock to protect i_flctx lists". Are any of > those callbacks still called with the i_lock? Should that column be > labeled "flc_lock" instead? Or is that even still useful information? > > --b. Yeah, that should probably be the flc_lock. I don't think we protect anything in the file locking code with the i_lock anymore. > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 08:52:07PM -0800, Dai Ngo wrote: > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst > > index d36fe79167b3..57ce0fbc8ab1 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/locking.rst > > @@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ prototypes:: > > void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *); /* break_lease callback */ > > int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **, int); > > bool (*lm_breaker_owns_lease)(struct file_lock *); > > + bool (*lm_lock_conflict)(struct file_lock *); > > > > locking rules: > > > > @@ -450,6 +451,7 @@ lm_grant: no no no > > lm_break: yes no no > > lm_change yes no no > > lm_breaker_owns_lease: no no no > > +lm_lock_conflict: no no no > > ====================== ============= ================= ========= > -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
