lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:08:29 +0000
From:   "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@...el.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
CC:     "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
        James Simmons <jsimmons@...radead.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' arg from
 ldlm_process_flock_lock()

On Oct 22, 2017, at 18:53, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> wrote:
> 
> it is only ever set to '1', so we can just assume that and remove the code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>

Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>

> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c |   15 ++-------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index cb826e9e840e..f719dc05e1ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -121,15 +121,9 @@ ldlm_flock_destroy(struct ldlm_lock *lock, enum ldlm_mode mode, __u64 flags)
>  * It is also responsible for splitting a lock if a portion of the lock
>  * is released.
>  *
> - * If \a first_enq is 0 (ie, called from ldlm_reprocess_queue):
> - *   - blocking ASTs have already been sent
> - *
> - * If \a first_enq is 1 (ie, called from ldlm_lock_enqueue):
> - *   - blocking ASTs have not been sent yet, so list of conflicting locks
> - *     would be collected and ASTs sent.
>  */
> static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> -				   int first_enq, enum ldlm_error *err,
> +				   enum ldlm_error *err,
> 				   struct list_head *work_list)
> {
> 	struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
> @@ -197,11 +191,6 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> 			if (!ldlm_flocks_overlap(lock, req))
> 				continue;
> 
> -			if (!first_enq) {
> -				reprocess_failed = 1;
> -				continue;
> -			}
> -
> 			if (*flags & LDLM_FL_BLOCK_NOWAIT) {
> 				ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> 				*err = -EAGAIN;
> @@ -605,7 +594,7 @@ ldlm_flock_completion_ast(struct ldlm_lock *lock, __u64 flags, void *data)
> 		/* We need to reprocess the lock to do merges or splits
> 		 * with existing locks owned by this process.
> 		 */
> -		ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, 1, &err, NULL);
> +		ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, &err, NULL);
> 	}
> 	unlock_res_and_lock(lock);
> 	return rc;
> 
> 

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation







Powered by blists - more mailing lists