Return-Path: Received: from discipline.rit.edu ([129.21.6.207]:43897 "HELO discipline.rit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756818AbbKEVyq (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:54:46 -0500 From: Andrew W Elble To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2] nfsd: fix race with open / open upgrade stateids References: <1446657225-72903-1-git-send-email-aweits@rit.edu> <20151105212108.GH9210@fieldses.org> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:54:45 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151105212108.GH9210@fieldses.org> (J. Bruce Fields's message of "Thu, 5 Nov 2015 16:21:08 -0500") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > Is there some lock imbalance?: Hmmmm, I'll have to poke at that a bit. > When you send a v2 patch, would you mind also describing what's changed? > If you stick the description here (between the --- and the diff), it'll > be discarded when git applies the patch (which is what we want). Ah. In this case, v1 missed unlocking the rwsem if nfs4_upgrade_open() returned status. > Is there's some particular point that you thought was confusing here? > Then I'm fine with highlighting that. But I don't want to routinely add > these block comments on every little function. Ok. > Code looks OK, though. (And I don't spot the locking problem on a quick > skim...). -- Andrew W. Elble aweits@discipline.rit.edu Infrastructure Engineer, Communications Technical Lead Rochester Institute of Technology PGP: BFAD 8461 4CCF DC95 DA2C B0EB 965B 082E 863E C912