[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140905100329.00da1065@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:03:29 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/17] locks: move freeing of leases outside of
i_lock
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:50:14 -0700
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:37AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > There was only one place where we still could free a file_lock while
> > holding the i_lock -- lease_modify. Add a new list_head argument to the
> > lm_change operation, pass in a private list when calling it, and fix
> > those callers to dispose of the list once the lock has been dropped.
>
> As mentioned I don't see a real need for this, but it does look correct
> to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Yeah, it's not strictly necessary, but I think it simplifies the API
for potential users. We already have the infrastructure to handle
deferring file_lock removal so we might as well take advantage of it
here too.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.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