> On Feb 10, 2022, at 2:41 PM, Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 2/10/22 6:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> 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 Jeff, this table of locking rules seems out of date since 6109c85037e5 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. > > Will replace inode->i_lock with flc_lock in v13. To be clear, if you're fixing the documentation, that would need to be a clean-up patch before your 1/3. Thanks! > -Dai > >> >>> 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 >>>> ====================== ============= ================= ========= -- Chuck Lever
