All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
To: "'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton@redhat.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] locks: report l_pid as -1 for FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:55:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d1101cee619$ad866500$08932f00$@mindspring.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384965906-27327-6-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>

> FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks are no longer tied to a particular PID, and are
instead
> inheritable by child processes. Report a l_pid of '-1' for these sorts of
locks
> since the pid is somewhat meaningless for them.

Hmm, I suppose in the case of a process that acquires a private lock, forks
(passing the lock to the child process) and then exits, pid would be
meaningless, but I wonder how common that case is compared to a
multi-threaded process (especially a file server) that will hold many
private locks, and not pass them to child processes (and exit)?

I.e. as a future user of this feature, I wonder if I'm going to want to know
that THESE private locks are owned by Ganesha and THOSE are owned by Samba?

Frank

> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index d5fb853..8a4d4e4 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_test_lock);
> 
>  static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
{
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILP_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>  	/*
>  	 * Make sure we can represent the posix lock via @@ -1911,7 +1911,7
> @@ static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock
*fl)  #if
> BITS_PER_LONG == 32  static void posix_lock_to_flock64(struct flock64
> *flock, struct file_lock *fl)  {
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILP_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  	flock->l_start = fl->fl_start;
>  	flock->l_len = fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX ? 0 :
>  		fl->fl_end - fl->fl_start + 1;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel"
in the
> body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Frank Filz" <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>
To: "'Jeff Layton'" <jlayton@redhat.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	<samba-technical@lists.samba.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] locks: report l_pid as -1 for FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:55:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d1101cee619$ad866500$08932f00$@mindspring.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384965906-27327-6-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>

> FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks are no longer tied to a particular PID, and are
instead
> inheritable by child processes. Report a l_pid of '-1' for these sorts of
locks
> since the pid is somewhat meaningless for them.

Hmm, I suppose in the case of a process that acquires a private lock, forks
(passing the lock to the child process) and then exits, pid would be
meaningless, but I wonder how common that case is compared to a
multi-threaded process (especially a file server) that will hold many
private locks, and not pass them to child processes (and exit)?

I.e. as a future user of this feature, I wonder if I'm going to want to know
that THESE private locks are owned by Ganesha and THOSE are owned by Samba?

Frank

> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index d5fb853..8a4d4e4 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_test_lock);
> 
>  static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock *fl)
{
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILP_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  #if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>  	/*
>  	 * Make sure we can represent the posix lock via @@ -1911,7 +1911,7
> @@ static int posix_lock_to_flock(struct flock *flock, struct file_lock
*fl)  #if
> BITS_PER_LONG == 32  static void posix_lock_to_flock64(struct flock64
> *flock, struct file_lock *fl)  {
> -	flock->l_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> +	flock->l_pid = IS_FILP_PVT(fl) ? -1 : fl->fl_pid;
>  	flock->l_start = fl->fl_start;
>  	flock->l_len = fl->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX ? 0 :
>  		fl->fl_end - fl->fl_start + 1;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel"
in the
> body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


  reply	other threads:[~2013-11-20 17:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-20 16:45 [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 16:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] locks: consolidate checks for compatible filp->f_mode values in setlk handlers Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 16:45   ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-21 17:35   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-20 16:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] locks: rename locks_remove_flock to locks_remove_filp Jeff Layton
2013-11-21 17:35   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-20 16:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] locks: add new "private" lock type that is owned by the filp Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 16:45   ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 19:50   ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-11-20 20:00     ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 20:00       ` Jeff Layton
2013-12-09 16:46     ` [Nfs-ganesha-devel] " Jeff Layton
2013-12-10 20:35       ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-11-21 17:36   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-11-20 16:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] locks: show private lock types in /proc/locks Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 20:00   ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-11-20 20:03     ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 20:03       ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 20:04     ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-11-20 16:45 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] locks: report l_pid as -1 for FL_FILP_PRIVATE locks Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 17:55   ` Frank Filz [this message]
2013-11-20 17:55     ` Frank Filz
2013-11-20 18:57     ` Jeff Layton
2013-11-20 18:57       ` Jeff Layton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='0d1101cee619$ad866500$08932f00$@mindspring.com' \
    --to=ffilzlnx@mindspring.com \
    --cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=samba-technical@lists.samba.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.