Re: [NFS] Locking patches (generic & nfs)

From: Trond Myklebust (trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 10:27:38 EST

Next message: Richard A Nelson: "Re: is flock broken in 2.4 or 2.5 kernels or what does this mean?"
Previous message: Marconi: "Linux Kernel 2.4.19rc3 PROBLEM"
In reply to: Olaf Kirch: "Re: [NFS] Locking patches (generic & nfs)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tuesday 23 July 2002 17:06, Olaf Kirch wrote:

> But as it is today, all blocked locks get inserted at the end of the
> list because time_before_eq does a signed comparison! With the unpatched
> code, when you have a blocked lock, and the conflicting lock is removed,
> lockd will never send out a GRANTED_MSG. Because the blocked lock is at the
> end of the list, and never picked up.

Fair enough: I see the bug now.

So why could we not do something like the following instead? This just ensures
that we always leave the NLM_NEVER stuff at the end of the list which should
suffice to keep nlmsvc_retry_blocked() happy.

Cheers,
Trond

text/plain attachment: fix_svclock.dif

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Richard A Nelson: "Re: is flock broken in 2.4 or 2.5 kernels or what does this mean?"
Previous message: Marconi: "Linux Kernel 2.4.19rc3 PROBLEM"
In reply to: Olaf Kirch: "Re: [NFS] Locking patches (generic & nfs)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:43 EST