From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [patch] flock/fcntl bug Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:48:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1103147296.1236.7.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Ceh1W-0004Qo-Gp for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:30 -0800 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Ceh1V-0007F5-Ko for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 13:49:30 -0800 To: Marc Eshel In-Reply-To: Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: on den 15.12.2004 Klokka 10:15 (-0800) skreiv Marc Eshel: > To fs/locks.c owner > > There is a bug in the unlock of posix locks. If there is an flock held on a > file that is being closed an unneeded call is made to the file system to do > an fcntl unlock. In the case of NFS it will be a call to the NFS server > which is expensive. This patch just checks that it is a posix lock before > calling the file system. Hmm... Not sure this is right. What if the filesystem doesn't use inode->i_flock to bookkeep its locks? It isn't obliged to do so now... Cheers, Trond -- Trond Myklebust ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs