[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130226235622.231791477@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:57:52 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Wangyuan Zhang <Wangyuan.Zhang@...app.com>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Subject: [ 23/53] NLM: Ensure that we resend all pending blocking locks after a reclaim
3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
commit 666b3d803a511fbc9bc5e5ea8ce66010cf03ea13 upstream.
Currently, nlmclnt_lock will break out of the for(;;) loop when
the reclaimer wakes up the blocking lock thread by setting
nlm_lck_denied_grace_period. This causes the lock request to fail
with an ENOLCK error.
The intention was always to ensure that we resend the lock request
after the grace period has expired.
Reported-by: Wangyuan Zhang <Wangyuan.Zhang@...app.com>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
--- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
@@ -550,6 +550,9 @@ again:
status = nlmclnt_block(block, req, NLMCLNT_POLL_TIMEOUT);
if (status < 0)
break;
+ /* Resend the blocking lock request after a server reboot */
+ if (resp->status == nlm_lck_denied_grace_period)
+ continue;
if (resp->status != nlm_lck_blocked)
break;
}
--
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