Hey Rick, you are right, I have realized it few hours ago, but just now I have finished the new webrev and updated the bugster.
Please check it again. Thanks, Pavel Rick Mesta wrote: > Hey Pavel, > > My only concern w/removing the hold/rele pair is that you > cannot guarantee that the nfs4_server_t doesn't disappear > from underneath you, since you don't explicitly hold it. Is > this a concern ? (Maybe you've already thought about that) > > rick > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Pavel Filipensky wrote: > | Hi, > | > | can I get a code review for 6861594 NFSv4 client Deadlock: cycle in > | blocking chain at nfs4_move_mi > | > | Webrev: > | > | http://cr.opensolaris.org/~pavelf/6861594/ > | > | > | Background: > | > | If there are two threads doing a failover for differnet mounts at the > | same time, both of them need to grab > | the s_lock for the new and the old nfs server. To prevent a deadlock > | they must grab the s_locks it in the same order. > | nfs4_move_mi() is not safe since it does not guarantee the same order > | and allows the deadlock to happen. > | > | > | > | Thanks, > | Pavel > | > | > | _______________________________________________ > | nfs-discuss mailing list > | nfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > >
