Hi, Now in the -nmw tree. Thanks,
Steve. On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:52 -0500, David Teigland wrote: > The recent commit fb6791d100d1bba20b5cdbc4912e1f7086ec60f8 > included the wrong logic. The lvbptr check was incorrectly > added after the patch was tested. > > Signed-off-by: David Teigland <[email protected]> > --- > fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c > index b906ed1..9802de0 100644 > --- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c > +++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c > @@ -281,6 +281,7 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl) > { > struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = gl->gl_sbd; > struct lm_lockstruct *ls = &sdp->sd_lockstruct; > + int lvb_needs_unlock = 0; > int error; > > if (gl->gl_lksb.sb_lkid == 0) { > @@ -294,8 +295,12 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl) > gfs2_update_request_times(gl); > > /* don't want to skip dlm_unlock writing the lvb when lock is ex */ > + > + if (gl->gl_lksb.sb_lvbptr && (gl->gl_state == LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE)) > + lvb_needs_unlock = 1; > + > if (test_bit(SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK, &sdp->sd_flags) && > - gl->gl_lksb.sb_lvbptr && (gl->gl_state != LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE)) { > + !lvb_needs_unlock) { > gfs2_glock_free(gl); > return; > }
