Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com ([209.85.192.172]:33865 "EHLO mail-pd0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754773AbaHNM0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2014 08:26:19 -0400 Message-ID: <53ECAADB.6040903@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:26:03 +0800 From: Kinglong Mee MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Layton CC: "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , Trond Myklebust , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches , kinglongmee@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] fs/locks.c: Copy all information for conflock References: <53BAAAC5.9000106@gmail.com> <53E22EA5.70708@gmail.com> <20140809065112.700e0ecc@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <53E791F1.40802@gmail.com> <20140811121949.4c3d7894@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20140811121949.4c3d7894@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8/12/2014 00:19, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 23:38:25 +0800 > Kinglong Mee wrote: > >> Commit d5b9026a67 ([PATCH] knfsd: locks: flag NFSv4-owned locks) using >> fl_lmops field in file_lock for checking nfsd4 lockowner. >> >> But, commit 1a747ee0cc (locks: don't call ->copy_lock methods on return >> of conflicting locks) causes the fl_lmops of conflock always be NULL. >> >> Also, commit 0996905f93 (lockd: posix_test_lock() should not call >> locks_copy_lock()) caused the fl_lmops of conflock always be NULL too. >> >> v2: Only change the order from 3/3 to 1/3 now. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee >> --- >> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +- >> fs/locks.c | 25 ++++++------------------- >> include/linux/fs.h | 6 ------ >> 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c >> index ab798a8..e1f209c 100644 >> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c >> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c >> @@ -677,7 +677,7 @@ nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, struct file_lock *conf, >> block->b_flags |= B_TIMED_OUT; >> if (conf) { >> if (block->b_fl) >> - __locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf); >> + locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf); >> } >> } >> >> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c >> index 717fbc4..91b0f03 100644 >> --- a/fs/locks.c >> +++ b/fs/locks.c >> @@ -266,35 +266,22 @@ static void locks_copy_private(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) >> new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops; >> } >> >> -/* >> - * Initialize a new lock from an existing file_lock structure. >> - */ >> -void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, const struct file_lock *fl) >> +void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) >> { >> + locks_release_private(new); >> + >> new->fl_owner = fl->fl_owner; >> new->fl_pid = fl->fl_pid; >> - new->fl_file = NULL; >> + new->fl_file = fl->fl_file; >> new->fl_flags = fl->fl_flags; >> new->fl_type = fl->fl_type; >> new->fl_start = fl->fl_start; >> new->fl_end = fl->fl_end; >> new->fl_ops = NULL; >> new->fl_lmops = NULL; >> -} >> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__locks_copy_lock); >> - >> -void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) >> -{ >> - locks_release_private(new); >> - >> - __locks_copy_lock(new, fl); >> - new->fl_file = fl->fl_file; >> - new->fl_ops = fl->fl_ops; >> - new->fl_lmops = fl->fl_lmops; >> >> locks_copy_private(new, fl); >> } > > (cc'ing Joe Perches) > > Ok, so you're basically just reverting 1a747ee0cc11a19. The catch there > is that you now need to ensure that any conflock structures are > properly initialized before passing them to locks_copy_lock. > > The nfsv4 server code currently doesn't do that and it will need to be > fixed to do so or that will be a regression. I don't think so. locks_alloc_lock() has initialize the file_lock struct, the same as locks_init_lock(). I will clean the duplicate initialize for file_lock in nfs4state.c in v3. > For the NLM code, Joe Perches has proposed a patch to remove the > conflock parameter from lm_grant since the callers always pass in NULL > anyway. You may want to pull in his patch and rebase yours on top of it > since it'll remove that __locks_copy_lock call altogether. > > Joe, is Andrew merging that patch or do I need to pull it into the > locks tree? I will update this patch based on that patch and your new patch for locks.c. thanks, Kinglong Mee > >> - >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_copy_lock); >> >> static inline int flock_translate_cmd(int cmd) { >> @@ -718,7 +705,7 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl) >> break; >> } >> if (cfl) { >> - __locks_copy_lock(fl, cfl); >> + locks_copy_lock(fl, cfl); >> if (cfl->fl_nspid) >> fl->fl_pid = pid_vnr(cfl->fl_nspid); >> } else >> @@ -921,7 +908,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str >> if (!posix_locks_conflict(request, fl)) >> continue; >> if (conflock) >> - __locks_copy_lock(conflock, fl); >> + locks_copy_lock(conflock, fl); >> error = -EAGAIN; >> if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP)) >> goto out; >> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h >> index e11d60c..ced023d 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/fs.h >> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h >> @@ -941,7 +941,6 @@ void locks_free_lock(struct file_lock *fl); >> extern void locks_init_lock(struct file_lock *); >> extern struct file_lock * locks_alloc_lock(void); >> extern void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *); >> -extern void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *, const struct file_lock *); >> extern void locks_remove_posix(struct file *, fl_owner_t); >> extern void locks_remove_file(struct file *); >> extern void locks_release_private(struct file_lock *); >> @@ -1001,11 +1000,6 @@ static inline void locks_init_lock(struct file_lock *fl) >> return; >> } >> >> -static inline void __locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) >> -{ >> - return; >> -} >> - >> static inline void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) >> { >> return; > >