Hi, Please consider pulling the following fix. Since there is only one patch this time, I've attached it below rather than posting it separately,
Steve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following changes since commit 949db153b6466c6f7cad5a427ecea94985927311:
Linux 3.8-rc5 (2013-01-25 11:57:28 -0800)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/steve/gfs2-3.0-fixes.git master
David Teigland (1):
GFS2: fix skip unlock condition
fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c | 7 ++++++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From d4e0bfec9b6fbb9b58640b44e01bb74ae0d29b22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Teigland <teigl...@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 17:52:07 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] GFS2: fix skip unlock condition
The recent commit fb6791d100d1bba20b5cdbc4912e1f7086ec60f8
included the wrong logic. The lvbptr check was incorrectly
added after the patch was tested.
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigl...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhit...@redhat.com>
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
index b906ed1..9802de0 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
@@ -281,6 +281,7 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
{
struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = gl->gl_sbd;
struct lm_lockstruct *ls = &sdp->sd_lockstruct;
+ int lvb_needs_unlock = 0;
int error;
if (gl->gl_lksb.sb_lkid == 0) {
@@ -294,8 +295,12 @@ static void gdlm_put_lock(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
gfs2_update_request_times(gl);
/* don't want to skip dlm_unlock writing the lvb when lock is ex */
+
+ if (gl->gl_lksb.sb_lvbptr && (gl->gl_state == LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE))
+ lvb_needs_unlock = 1;
+
if (test_bit(SDF_SKIP_DLM_UNLOCK, &sdp->sd_flags) &&
- gl->gl_lksb.sb_lvbptr && (gl->gl_state != LM_ST_EXCLUSIVE)) {
+ !lvb_needs_unlock) {
gfs2_glock_free(gl);
return;
}
--
1.7.4
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
