On Mon, 2023-08-14 at 17:11 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch updates the existing documentation regarding recent changes
> to vfs_lock_file() and lm_grant() is set. In case of lm_grant() is set
> we only handle FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED in case of FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is not
> set. This is the case of an blocking lock request. Non-blocking lock
> requests, when FL_SLEEP is not set, are handled in a synchronized way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index df8b26a42524..a8e51f462b43 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -2255,21 +2255,21 @@ int fcntl_getlk(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock *flock)
> * To avoid blocking kernel daemons, such as lockd, that need to acquire POSIX
> * locks, the ->lock() interface may return asynchronously, before the lock has
> * been granted or denied by the underlying filesystem, if (and only if)
> - * lm_grant is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously
> - * will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if)
> - * the request is for a blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously,
> - * it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock
> - * request completes.
> - * If the request is for non-blocking lock the file system should return
> - * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED then try to get the lock and call the callback routine
> - * with the result. If the request timed out the callback routine will return a
> + * lm_grant and FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return
> + * asynchronously will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; When ->lock() does return
Isn't the above backward? Shouldn't it say "Callers expecting ->lock()
to return asynchronously will only use F_SETLKW, not F_SETLK" ?
> + * asynchronously, it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when
> + * the lock request completes. The lm_grant() callback must be called in a
> + * sleepable context.
> + *
> + * If the request timed out the ->lm_grant() callback routine will return a
> * nonzero return code and the file system should release the lock. The file
> - * system is also responsible to keep a corresponding posix lock when it
> - * grants a lock so the VFS can find out which locks are locally held and do
> - * the correct lock cleanup when required.
> - * The underlying filesystem must not drop the kernel lock or call
> - * ->lm_grant() before returning to the caller with a FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED
> - * return code.
> + * system is also responsible to keep a corresponding posix lock when it grants
> + * a lock so the VFS can find out which locks are locally held and do the correct
> + * lock cleanup when required.
> + *
> + * If the request is for non-blocking lock (when F_SETLK and FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is not set)
> + * the file system should return -EAGAIN if failed to acquire or zero if acquiring was
> + * successfully without calling the ->lm_grant() callback routine.
> */
> int vfs_lock_file(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf)
> {
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
