Hi, On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 8:01 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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" ? > So far I know lockd will always use F_SETLK only, if it's a blocking or non-blocking request you need to evaluate FL_SLEEP. But if lm_grant() is not set we are using a check on cmd if it's F_SETLK or F_SETLKW to check if it's non-blocking or blocking. If lm_grant() is set and checking on F_SETLKW should never be the case, because it will never be true (speaking from lockd point of view). - Alex
