The patch titled
Subject: ocfs2: dlmfs: don't clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroying lock
has been added to the -mm mm-nonmm-unstable branch. Its filename is
ocfs2-dlmfs-not-clear-user_lock_attached-when-destroy-lock.patch
This patch will shortly appear at
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/25-new.git/tree/patches/ocfs2-dlmfs-not-clear-user_lock_attached-when-destroy-lock.patch
This patch will later appear in the mm-nonmm-unstable branch at
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next via the mm-everything
branch at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm
and is updated there every 2-3 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Junxiao Bi <ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ocfs2: dlmfs: don't clear USER_LOCK_ATTACHED when destroying lock
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 16:52:23 -0700
The following function is the only place that checks USER_LOCK_ATTACHED.
This flag is set when lock request is granted through user_ast() and only
the following function will clear it.
Checking of this flag here is to make sure ocfs2_dlm_unlock is not issued
if this lock is never granted. For example, lock file is created and then
get removed, open file never happens.
Clearing the flag here is not necessary because this is the only function
that checks it, if another flow is executing user_dlm_destroy_lock(), it
will bail out at the beginning because of USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN and never
check USER_LOCK_ATTACHED. Drop the clear, so we don't need take care of
it for the following error handling patch.
int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lock_res *lockres)
{
...
status = 0;
if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_ATTACHED)) {
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
goto bail;
}
lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
status = ocfs2_dlm_unlock(conn, &lockres->l_lksb, DLM_LKF_VALBLK);
if (status) {
user_log_dlm_error("ocfs2_dlm_unlock", status, lockres);
goto bail;
}
...
}
V1 discussion with Joseph:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/7b620c53-0c45-da2c-829e-26195cbe7d4e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220518235224.87100-1-junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Changwei Ge <gechangwei@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Gang He <ghe@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jun Piao <piaojun@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c~ocfs2-dlmfs-not-clear-user_lock_attached-when-destroy-lock
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlmfs/userdlm.c
@@ -619,7 +619,6 @@ int user_dlm_destroy_lock(struct user_lo
goto bail;
}
- lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_ATTACHED;
lockres->l_flags |= USER_LOCK_BUSY;
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
ocfs2-dlmfs-not-clear-user_lock_attached-when-destroy-lock.patch
ocfs2-dlmfs-fix-error-handling-of-user_dlm_destroy_lock.patch
