On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 06:31:55 -0800
Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote:
> > void ceph_count_locks(struct inode *inode, int *fcntl_count, int
> > *flock_count)
> > {
> > struct file_lock *lock;
> > + struct file_lock_context *ctx;
> >
> > *fcntl_count = 0;
> > *flock_count = 0;
> >
> > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> Seems like moving the locking around is unrelated to this patch.
>
Yeah that could be split out into a separate cleanup patch first. I'll
do that on the next iteration.
> > + list_for_each_entry(fl, &flctx->flc_flock, fl_list) {
> > + if (nfs_file_open_context(fl->fl_file)->state != state)
> > + continue;
> > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + status = ops->recover_lock(state, fl);
> > + switch (status) {
> > + case 0:
> > + break;
> > + case -ESTALE:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_ADMIN_REVOKED:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_STALE_STATEID:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_EXPIRED:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_NO_GRACE:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_STALE_CLIENTID:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_BADSESSION:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_BADSLOT:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_BAD_HIGH_SLOT:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_CONN_NOT_BOUND_TO_SESSION:
> > + goto out;
> > + default:
> > + printk(KERN_ERR "NFS: %s: unhandled error %d\n",
> > + __func__, status);
> > + case -ENOMEM:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_DENIED:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_BAD:
> > + case -NFS4ERR_RECLAIM_CONFLICT:
> > + /* kill_proc(fl->fl_pid, SIGLOST, 1); */
> > + status = 0;
> > + }
>
> Instead of duplicating this huge body of code it seems like a good idea
> to add a preparatory patch to factor it out into a helper function.
>
Sigh, I tried to do that first but the result was just too ugly. The
above logic is too deeply entwined into this function for that to work
well. I'm not usually a fan of cut and paste, but in this case I think
it's the best way to do this. The good news is that the duplication
goes away with the next patch in the series.
> > +static bool
> > +is_whole_file_wrlock(struct file_lock *fl)
> > +{
> > + return fl->fl_start == 0 && fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX && fl->fl_type ==
> > F_WRLCK;
> > +}
>
> Please break this into multiple lines to stay under 80 characters.
Will do. I've probably violated that rule several times in this series
-- mea culpa. I'll clean that up for the next iteration.
--
Jeff Layton <jlay...@primarydata.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
