[linux-cifs] Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] locks: move flock locks to file_lock_context


>  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.

> +	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.

> +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.

This message from: http://www.mailbrowse.com/linux-cifs/10410.html
Previous message: Re: [linux-cifs-client] [PATCH] cifs: hard mount option behaviour implementation
Next message:Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] locks: have locks_release_file use flock_lock_file to release generic flock locks