From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] lockd: stop abusing file_lock_list
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:23:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20060216102355.GK4203@suse.de>
References: <20060214192051.GA20751@lst.de> <1139956050.7867.64.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1140065071.8209.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:54096 "EHLO virtualhost.dk")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750824AbWBPKXz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:23:55 -0500
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1140065071.8209.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 15 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>  static void nlmclnt_locks_release_private(struct file_lock *fl)
>  {
>  	nlm_put_lockowner(fl->fl_u.nfs_fl.owner);
>  	fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> +	if (!list_empty(&fl->fl_u.nfs_fl.list))
> +		list_del(&fl->fl_u.nfs_fl.list);
>  }

This looks fishy, if invoked twice both will return !list_empty() -
list_del_init()?

Why not just always use list_del_init(), if you have to add these checks
anyways? A double list_del_init() doesn't cause any harm.

-- 
Jens Axboe