Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-qg0-f43.google.com ([209.85.192.43]:44905 "EHLO mail-qg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754322AbaHNOAc (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:00:32 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a108so1039706qge.16 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:00:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Layton Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:00:25 -0400 To: Kinglong Mee Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux NFS Mailing List , Trond Myklebust , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] fs/locks.c: Copy all information for conflock Message-ID: <20140814100025.2b2f72db@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <53ECAADB.6040903@gmail.com> References: <53BAAAC5.9000106@gmail.com> <53E22EA5.70708@gmail.com> <20140809065112.700e0ecc@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <53E791F1.40802@gmail.com> <20140811121949.4c3d7894@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <53ECAADB.6040903@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:26:03 +0800 Kinglong Mee wrote: > 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. > Ahh, you're correct. Yes, please just remove that instead. You might also want to look for other places in the kernel that call locks_init_lock unnecessarily. We might as well get rid of all of them while we're looking. > > 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 > Thanks. I wiggled Joe's patch on top of my current set of locking patches and will plan to merge it for v3.18 unless there are any objections. > > > >> - > >> 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; > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Jeff Layton