On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:06:34 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks good, > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> > > Some comments on further work I'd like to see in this area, though: > > > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > > + time_out_leases(inode); > > for (before = &inode->i_flock; > > ((fl = *before) != NULL) && IS_LEASE(fl); > > before = &fl->fl_next) { > > if (fl->fl_file != filp) > > continue; > > - return fl->fl_lmops->lm_change(before, F_UNLCK); > > + error = fl->fl_lmops->lm_change(before, F_UNLCK); > > } > > We really should split a lm_release from lm_change, the way it is > used is highly confusing. In addition I think a lot of code > currently in lease_modify should move here instead, e.g. something like: > > > if (fl->fl_file != filp) > continue; > > fl = *before; > fl->fl_type = F_UNLCK; > lease_clear_pending(fl, F_UNLCK); > locks_wake_up_blocks(fl); > if (fl->fl_lmops->lm_delete) > fl->fl_lmops->lm_delete(fl); > locks_delete_lock(before, NULL); > > with lm_delete for user space leases as: > > static void lease_delete(struct file_lock *fl) > { > struct file *filp = fl->fl_file; > > f_delown(filp); > filp->f_owner.signum = 0; > fasync_helper(0, fl->fl_file, 0, &fl->fl_fasync); > if (fl->fl_fasync != NULL) { > printk(KERN_ERR "locks_delete_lock: fasync == %p\n", > fl->fl_fasync); > fl->fl_fasync = NULL; > } > } > > and a NULL implementation for delegations. Good idea. I'll spin that up on the next iteration. Thanks, -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
