[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130604201759.GB15594@fieldses.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 16:17:59 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, dhowells@...hat.com,
sage@...tank.com, smfrench@...il.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
piastryyy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 05/11] locks: encapsulate the fl_link list handling
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:28PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Move the fl_link list handling routines into a separate set of helpers.
> Also move the global list handling out of locks_insert_block, and into
> the caller that ends up triggering it as that allows us to eliminate the
> IS_POSIX check there.
ACK.--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index cef0e04..caca466 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -494,13 +494,38 @@ static int posix_same_owner(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2)
> return fl1->fl_owner == fl2->fl_owner;
> }
>
> +/* Remove a blocker or lock from one of the global lists */
> +static inline void
> +locks_insert_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
> +{
> + list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
> +{
> + list_del_init(&waiter->fl_link);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *waiter)
> +{
> + list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_link, &file_lock_list);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void
> +locks_delete_global_locks(struct file_lock *waiter)
> +{
> + list_del_init(&waiter->fl_link);
> +}
> +
> /* Remove waiter from blocker's block list.
> * When blocker ends up pointing to itself then the list is empty.
> */
> static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> {
> list_del_init(&waiter->fl_block);
> - list_del_init(&waiter->fl_link);
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
> waiter->fl_next = NULL;
> }
>
> @@ -524,8 +549,6 @@ static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
> BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_block));
> list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_block);
> waiter->fl_next = blocker;
> - if (IS_POSIX(blocker))
> - list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list);
> }
>
> /* Wake up processes blocked waiting for blocker.
> @@ -552,7 +575,7 @@ static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
> */
> static void locks_insert_lock(struct file_lock **pos, struct file_lock *fl)
> {
> - list_add(&fl->fl_link, &file_lock_list);
> + locks_insert_global_locks(fl);
>
> fl->fl_nspid = get_pid(task_tgid(current));
>
> @@ -573,7 +596,7 @@ static void locks_delete_lock(struct file_lock **thisfl_p)
>
> *thisfl_p = fl->fl_next;
> fl->fl_next = NULL;
> - list_del_init(&fl->fl_link);
> + locks_delete_global_locks(fl);
>
> if (fl->fl_nspid) {
> put_pid(fl->fl_nspid);
> @@ -839,6 +862,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
> goto out;
> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
> locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> + locks_insert_global_blocked(request);
> goto out;
> }
> }
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
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