From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:03:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122190345.GB23796@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090122133733.5d692a09@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > using locks_init_lock() plus the existing assignments. But, I think the
> > best solution may be for dlm_posix_get() to set up a new lightweight
> > file_lock with the values we need, and then call __locks_copy_lock() with
> > it, just like posix_test_lock().
>
> Why would we want to make another lock here? Is that just to make sure that
> if new fields are added later that we deal with them appropriately?
Just so we could use the __locks_copy_lock() function to make the assignments
for us. Setting up the fake file_lock just for that purpose might not be
worth it, though, so I'm happy to stick with the current patch.
Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, nfsv4@linux-nfs.org,
lkml@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:03:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122190345.GB23796@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090122133733.5d692a09-xSBYVWDuneFaJnirhKH9O4GKTjYczspe@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > using locks_init_lock() plus the existing assignments. But, I think the
> > best solution may be for dlm_posix_get() to set up a new lightweight
> > file_lock with the values we need, and then call __locks_copy_lock() with
> > it, just like posix_test_lock().
>
> Why would we want to make another lock here? Is that just to make sure that
> if new fields are added later that we deal with them appropriately?
Just so we could use the __locks_copy_lock() function to make the assignments
for us. Setting up the fake file_lock just for that purpose might not be
worth it, though, so I'm happy to stick with the current patch.
Dave
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Teigland <teigland-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields"
<bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
cluster-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
nfsv4-6DNke4IJHB0gsBAKwltoeQ@public.gmane.org,
lkml-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:03:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090122190345.GB23796@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090122133733.5d692a09-xSBYVWDuneFaJnirhKH9O4GKTjYczspe@public.gmane.org>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 01:37:33PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > using locks_init_lock() plus the existing assignments. But, I think the
> > best solution may be for dlm_posix_get() to set up a new lightweight
> > file_lock with the values we need, and then call __locks_copy_lock() with
> > it, just like posix_test_lock().
>
> Why would we want to make another lock here? Is that just to make sure that
> if new fields are added later that we deal with them appropriately?
Just so we could use the __locks_copy_lock() function to make the assignments
for us. Setting up the fake file_lock just for that purpose might not be
worth it, though, so I'm happy to stick with the current patch.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-22 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-21 16:34 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/2] nfsd/dlm: fix knfsd panic when NFSv4 client does GETLK call on GFS2 (regression) Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 16:34 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 16:34 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 16:34 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 16:34 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 23:42 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-21 23:42 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 2:26 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 2:26 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:32 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:32 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:37 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:37 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:05 ` [Cluster-devel] " David Teigland
2009-01-22 18:05 ` David Teigland
2009-01-22 18:37 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:37 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:03 ` David Teigland [this message]
2009-01-22 19:03 ` David Teigland
2009-01-22 19:03 ` David Teigland
2009-01-22 18:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:48 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-21 16:34 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 2/2] nfsd: only set file_lock.fl_lmops in nfsd4_lockt if a stateowner is found Jeff Layton
2009-01-21 16:34 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:52 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:52 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:58 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:58 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:12 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 19:12 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 19:12 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 18:59 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 18:59 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:09 ` [Cluster-devel] " Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:09 ` Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:15 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 19:15 ` J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-22 19:15 ` J. Bruce Fields
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-22 19:16 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/2] nfsd/dlm: fix knfsd panic when NFSv4 client does GETLK call Jeff Layton
2009-01-22 19:16 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 1/2] dlm: initialize file_lock struct in GETLK before copying conflicting lock Jeff Layton
2009-01-27 22:34 ` [Cluster-devel] " J. Bruce Fields
2009-01-27 23:30 ` 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=20090122190345.GB23796@redhat.com \
--to=teigland@redhat.com \
/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.