Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:08:04 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, hch@infradead.org,
        cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] locks: move freeing of leases outside of i_lock
Message-ID: <20140824160804.GH15908@infradead.org>
References: <1408804878-1331-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com>
 <1408804878-1331-10-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <1408804878-1331-10-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> There was only one place where we still could free a file_lock while
> holding the i_lock -- lease_modify. Add a new list_head argument to the
> lm_change operation, pass in a private list when calling it, and fix
> those callers to dispose of the list once the lock has been dropped.

Why do we care about locks held when simply freeing a piece of memory?