[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1421936877-27529-14-git-send-email-jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:27:57 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 13/13] locks: update comments that refer to inode->i_flock
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
---
fs/locks.c | 2 +-
include/linux/fs.h | 19 ++++++++++---------
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 2fc36b3772a0..4d0d41163a50 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -2212,7 +2212,7 @@ again:
*/
/*
* we need that spin_lock here - it prevents reordering between
- * update of inode->i_flock and check for it done in close().
+ * update of i_flctx->flc_posix and check for it done in close().
* rcu_read_lock() wouldn't do.
*/
spin_lock(¤t->files->file_lock);
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index f87cb2f03103..ddd2fa7cefd3 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -925,12 +925,11 @@ int locks_in_grace(struct net *);
* FIXME: should we create a separate "struct lock_request" to help distinguish
* these two uses?
*
- * The i_flock list is ordered by:
+ * The varous i_flctx lists are ordered by:
*
- * 1) lock type -- FL_LEASEs first, then FL_FLOCK, and finally FL_POSIX
- * 2) lock owner
- * 3) lock range start
- * 4) lock range end
+ * 1) lock owner
+ * 2) lock range start
+ * 3) lock range end
*
* Obviously, the last two criteria only matter for POSIX locks.
*/
@@ -1992,8 +1991,9 @@ static inline int break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
@@ -2005,8 +2005,9 @@ static inline int break_deleg(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
--
2.1.0
--
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