[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090127183045.58582d21@tleilax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:30:45 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
teigland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before
copying conflicting lock
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:34:01 -0500
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 02:16:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > dlm_posix_get fills out the relevant fields in the file_lock before
> > returning when there is a lock conflict, but doesn't clean out any of
> > the other fields in the file_lock.
> >
> > When nfsd does a NFSv4 lockt call, it sets the fl_lmops to
> > nfsd_posix_mng_ops before calling the lower fs. When the lock comes back
> > after testing a lock on GFS2, it still has that field set. This confuses
> > nfsd into thinking that the file_lock is a nfsd4 lock.
> >
> > Fix this by making DLM reinitialize the file_lock before copying the
> > fields from the conflicting lock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
>
> I'll leave this one to gfs2 people to apply unless I'm told otherwise.
>
> --b.
>
That should be fine. Dave T. has taken this into his tree and is
pushing it to Linus.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists