>>>>> " " == Michael Riepe <email@example.com> writes:
>> Ugh. In that case, my personal preference would be to make
>> nlm_release_file() grab the semaphore, then call another
>> routine to do f_count-- and possible file cleanup which could
>> also be called by nlmsvc_traverse_shares(). Call it
>> nlm_put_file() if you like 8-).
> nlm_release_file() *does* grab the semaphore. That's the
Which is why I'm proposing a solution: to split it into 2 functions.
1st function does the semaphore manipulations and calls
2nd function which does the f_count--, nlm_delete_file()...
The second function can be called by any other creature already
holding the semaphore to safely decrement f_count. That way we don't
fill the lockd stuff with loads of different routines that may end up
doing --f_count wrongly (like put_file(file, 0); will do).
> Adding or removing blocks or locks does not affect f_count at
> all. There ist one function that changes f_count when it
> removes a block, but it is never called, at least not in 2.2.x.
Look again. With exception of nlmsvc_proc_null(), every single call to
a nlmsvc_proc_*() routine will do nlmsvc_lookup_file() which does
In any case, the point is we don't want to have loads of different routines doing the work of nlm_release_file(). That's going to give rise to unnecessary maintenance issues whenever we want to make changes.
Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST