Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106763-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZfixMxRWFNmkf-Ta@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZfixMxRWFNmkf-Ta@redhat.com>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:44:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjnxmpk1L9+ibbZmia0qNNwa8Qnk31_57O-DZqQfL08OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] dlm fixes for 6.9
To: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gfs2@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 14:25, David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I dropped the commit with the bad atomic usage, and replaced it with two
> other commits: the first reverts the unnecessary change that began using
> atomic_t for lkb_wait_count, and the second adds comments to the recovery
> code that forcibly resets the wait_count state.

Ok, the diff certainly looks saner. I didn't look at the code outside
the context of the diff, so that's literally just going by the patches
themselves, but I appreciate the comment ("The wait_count will almost
always be 1, but in case of an overlapping unlock/cancel it could be
2: see ..") and yes, it just makes the old atomic thing sound even
odder.

Thanks,

            Linus