On 10/25, Chuck Lever wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 07:39:31PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Hi Chuck, > > > > Thanks for your reply. But I am already sleeping and I can't understand it. > > I was responding to "I can not understand the intent." But also I > was hoping that explanation would help you provide a correct > replacement for the existing code. In case I was not clear, I have already provided the replacement for the existing code which looks "correct" for me ;) Nevermind, please forget. > > 1. Do you agree that the current nfsd_copy_write_verifier() code makes no sense? > > Probably. > > > > I mean, the usage of read_seqbegin_or_lock() suggests that if the lockless > > pass fails it should take writeverf_lock for writing. But this can't happen, > > and thus this code doesn't look right no matter what. None of the > > read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry/done_seqretry helpers make any sense > > because "seq" is alway even. > > > 2. If yes, which change do you prefer? I'd prefer the patch at the end. > > Based on my limited understanding of read_seqbegin(), the patch at > the end seems cleanest and is on-point. Please post an official > version of that to linux-nfs@ with a full patch description, and > I'll see that it gets into v6.8-rc with proper tags, review, and > testing. Ok, will do tomorrow. Thanks, Oleg.
