[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BAB6D98.1090900@panasas.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:05:12 +0200
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
CC: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.com>,
Joel Becker <joel.becker@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: Skip check for mandatory locks when unlocking
On 03/23/2010 10:54 AM, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> The nfs bug fixed by 0800c5f7a499a8961c3868e95cc4cf1715166457
> and the 9p bug fixed by f78233dd44a110c574fe760ad6f9c1e8741a0d00
> and the gfs2 bug fixed by 720e7749279bde0d08684b1bb4e7a2eedeec6394
>
> also needs to be fixed for ocfs2. This patch does that.
>
> Hopefully this is the last filesystem with this bug :-)
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
> Cc: stable@...nel.org
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/locks.c b/fs/ocfs2/locks.c
> index 544ac62..923d3d8 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/locks.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,8 @@ int ocfs2_flock(struct file *file, int cmd, struct file_lock *fl)
>
> if (!(fl->fl_flags & FL_FLOCK))
> return -ENOLCK;
> - if (__mandatory_lock(inode))
> + if (__mandatory_lock(inode) &&
> + fl->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
If you reverse the order of these then you'd optimize away
the call to __mandatory_lock(inode). As it is now, it will
call it but then ignore the return if == F_UNLCK.
> return -ENOLCK;
>
> if ((osb->s_mount_opt & OCFS2_MOUNT_LOCALFLOCKS) ||
> --
Boaz
--
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