Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:13:00 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     Dai Ngo <dai.ngo@oracle.com>
Cc:     chuck.lever@oracle.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous
 Server
Message-ID: <20210630151300.GB20229@fieldses.org>
References: <20210603181438.109851-1-dai.ngo@oracle.com>
 <20210628202331.GC6776@fieldses.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210628202331.GC6776@fieldses.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 04:23:31PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 02:14:38PM -0400, Dai Ngo wrote:
> > @@ -6875,7 +6947,12 @@ nfsd4_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate,
> >  	case -EAGAIN:		/* conflock holds conflicting lock */
> >  		status = nfserr_denied;
> >  		dprintk("NFSD: nfsd4_lock: conflicting lock found!\n");
> > -		nfs4_set_lock_denied(conflock, &lock->lk_denied);
> > +
> > +		/* try again if conflict with courtesy client  */
> > +		if (nfs4_set_lock_denied(conflock, &lock->lk_denied) == -EAGAIN && !retried) {
> > +			retried = true;
> > +			goto again;
> > +		}
> 
> Ugh, apologies, this was my idea, but I just noticed it only handles
> conflicts from other NFSv4 clients.

(Oh, and I only just *now* noticed that you'd already pointed out that
problem in an email I apparently stopped reading after the first
paragraph:

	https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nfs/c983218b-d270-bbae-71c5-b591bfbce473@oracle.com/

Sorry!)

--b.