On 17/1/12 19:24, Eric Ren wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > On 01/09/2017 10:13 AM, Eric Ren wrote: >>>>> So you are trying to fix it by making phase3 finish without really >>>>> doing >>>> Phase3 can go ahead because this node is already under protection >>>> of cluster lock. >>> You said it was blocked... >> Oh, sorry, I meant phase3 can go ahead if this patch set is applied;-) >> >>> "Another hand, the recursive cluster lock (the second one) will be >>> blocked in >>> __ocfs2_cluster_lock() because of OCFS2_LOCK_BLOCKED." >>>>> __ocfs2_cluster_lock, then Process B can continue either. >>>>> Let us bear in mind that phase1 and phase3 are in the same context >>>>> and >>>>> executed in order. That's why I think there is no need to check if >>>>> locked >>>>> by myself in phase1. >> Sorry, I still cannot see it. Without keeping track of the first >> cluster lock, how can we >> know if >> we are under a context that has already been in the protecting of >> cluster lock? How can we >> handle >> the recursive locking (the second cluster lock) if we don't have this >> information? >>>>> If phase1 finds it is already locked by myself, that means the holder >>>>> is left by last operation without dec holder. That's why I think >>>>> it is a bug >>>>> instead of a recursive lock case. >> I think I got your point here. Do you mean that we should just add >> the lock holder at the >> first locking position >> without checking before that? Unfortunately, it's tricky here to know >> exactly which ocfs2 >> routine will be the first vfs >> entry point, such as ocfs2_get_acl() which can be both the first vfs >> entry point and the >> second vfs entry point after >> ocfs2_permission(), right? >> >> It will be a coding bug if the problem you concern about happens. I >> think we don't need to >> worry about this much because >> the code logic here is quite simple;-) > Ping... > > Did I clear your doubts by the last email? I really want to get your > point, if not. > > If there's any problem, I will fix them in the next version;-) Yes, but I still worry about the code bug case will be hidden behind recursive lock... Anyway, It depends on others...
Thanks, Joseph > > Thanks, > Eric > >> >> Thanks for your patience! >> Eric >> >>>> D > _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
