[PATCH 1/5] locks: don't call locks_release_private from locks_copy_lock

[Jeff Layton]

All callers of locks_copy_lock pass in a brand new file_lock struct, so
there's no need to calls locks_release_private on it. Replace that with
a warning that fires in the event that we receive a target lock that
doesn't look like it's properly initialized.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 fs/locks.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 356667a434c1..2c2d4f5022a7 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -285,7 +285,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__locks_copy_lock);
 
 void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
 {
-	locks_release_private(new);
+	/* "new" must be a freshly-initialized lock */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(new->fl_ops);
 
 	__locks_copy_lock(new, fl);
 	new->fl_file = fl->fl_file;
-- 
1.9.3

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