Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-qa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:57188 "EHLO mail-qa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932383AbaIEODb (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:03:31 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id w8so10903888qac.5 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:03:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Layton Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:03:29 -0400 To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] locks: move freeing of leases outside of i_lock Message-ID: <20140905100329.00da1065@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20140904175014.GE16935@infradead.org> References: <1409834323-7171-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <1409834323-7171-12-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <20140904175014.GE16935@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:50:14 -0700 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:37AM -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. > > As mentioned I don't see a real need for this, but it does look correct > to me. > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Yeah, it's not strictly necessary, but I think it simplifies the API for potential users. We already have the infrastructure to handle deferring file_lock removal so we might as well take advantage of it here too. -- Jeff Layton