On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:35:27 +0200 William Dauchy <wdauchy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Layton > <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Oh? Do you have some reason to suspect the setlk patch to be > > problematic? If not, then I'd rather not revert that one (at least not > > from mainline) since I don't think it's likely to be a problem and it > > does fix a real bug. It's your call on what you do in stable of course. > > Yes, I also had some instabilities with the setlk patch only applied. > Same trace as mentioned in the other thread. > That, I have no explanation for... We clearly hold a reference to the filp already when setting a lock. Hmm...unless there was maybe some reclaim involved? I wouldn't think that we'd try to reclaim locks for a filp that was being torn down, but I'd have to go over that code in detail to be sure. Can you give any insight into what you were doing when it was having problems? Did the server reboot while you were testing? In any case, we can probably get rid of the extra filp reference in that code too if/when the RFC series is merged. We definitely hold a reference to the inode already, so we shouldn't need to take the extra filp reference once that's merged. Not sure whether that patchset will be stable material though since it is a more invasive fix. -- Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html