Return-Path: Received: from mx144.netapp.com ([216.240.21.25]:37933 "EHLO mx144.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754666AbcILUjA (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:39:00 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] nfs: track whether server sets MAY_NOTIFY_LOCK flag To: Jeff Layton , References: <1473446870-1831-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1473446870-1831-6-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <68634996-8fba-5bcd-27e3-5d6ab5f881ba@Netapp.com> <1473712223.8504.2.camel@redhat.com> CC: From: Anna Schumaker Message-ID: <9c175d1b-51bb-c9ef-7c03-98a6e6c813c0@Netapp.com> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:38:48 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1473712223.8504.2.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/12/2016 04:30 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 16:19 -0400, Anna Schumaker wrote: >> Hi Jeff, >> >> On 09/09/2016 02:47 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> >>> If it does, then always have the client sleep for the max time before >>> repolling for the lock. If it doesn't then we can skip all of the >>> waitqueue handling as well. >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton >>> --- >>> fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h | 1 + >>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 2 ++ >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h b/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h >>> index 9bf64eacba5b..91e4f135a5f2 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4_fs.h >>> @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ enum { >>>>>>> NFS_STATE_RECLAIM_NOGRACE, /* OPEN stateid needs to recover state */ >>>>>>> NFS_STATE_POSIX_LOCKS, /* Posix locks are supported */ >>>>>>> NFS_STATE_RECOVERY_FAILED, /* OPEN stateid state recovery failed */ >>>>>>> + NFS_STATE_MAY_NOTIFY_LOCK, /* server may CB_NOTIFY_LOCK */ >> >> Looks like the reason I don't have this flag is because it's added as part of the server patches. I'll coordinate with the nfsd merge to make sure everything is added in the right order! >> >> Thanks, >> Anna > > Oh! Yes, that would explain it -- sorry... > > Would it help at all to break out the addition of that field into a > separate patch? Just wondering what the right approach is for future > reference. Hmm ... it might, actually. I think we've done that in the past with changes to other common files, and then merge order doesn't matter as much. Thanks, Anna > > Thanks, > Jeff > >>> >>> }; >>> >>> struct nfs4_state { >>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> index 90e8ded0ef82..627a9185822f 100644 >>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c >>> @@ -2537,6 +2537,8 @@ static int _nfs4_open_and_get_state(struct nfs4_opendata *opendata, >>>>> goto out; >>>>> if (server->caps & NFS_CAP_POSIX_LOCK) >>>>> set_bit(NFS_STATE_POSIX_LOCKS, &state->flags); >>>>> + if (opendata->o_res.rflags & NFS4_OPEN_RESULT_MAY_NOTIFY_LOCK) >>>>> + set_bit(NFS_STATE_MAY_NOTIFY_LOCK, &state->flags); >>> >>>>> dentry = opendata->dentry; >>>>> if (d_really_is_negative(dentry)) { >>> >> >> -- >> 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