* Re: [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 14:43 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Layton @ 2014-07-01 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches
Cc: Christine Caulfield, David Teigland, Trond Myklebust,
J. Bruce Fields, cluster-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
Joe Perches <joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> is always NULL.
>
> How about removing it?
>
> This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> but it should be clear enough...
>
ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
locking code.
> ---
> fs/dlm/plock.c | 8 ++++----
> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 12 +++---------
> include/linux/fs.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> index e59d332..e0ab3a9 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct plock_op {
>
> struct plock_xop {
> struct plock_op xop;
> - int (*callback)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
> + int (*callback)(struct file_lock *fl, int result);
> void *fl;
> void *file;
> struct file_lock flc;
> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> struct file *file;
> struct file_lock *fl;
> struct file_lock *flc;
> - int (*notify)(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *cont, int result) = NULL;
> + int (*notify)(struct file_lock *fl, int result) = NULL;
> struct plock_xop *xop = (struct plock_xop *)op;
> int rv = 0;
>
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> notify = xop->callback;
>
> if (op->info.rv) {
> - notify(fl, NULL, op->info.rv);
> + notify(fl, op->info.rv);
> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> (unsigned long long)op->info.number, file, fl);
> }
>
> - rv = notify(fl, NULL, 0);
> + rv = notify(fl, 0);
> if (rv) {
> /* XXX: We need to cancel the fs lock here: */
> log_print("dlm_plock_callback: lock granted after lock request "
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index ab798a8..2a61701 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -667,22 +667,16 @@ nlmsvc_cancel_blocked(struct net *net, struct nlm_file *file, struct nlm_lock *l
> * deferred rpc for GETLK and SETLK.
> */
> static void
> -nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, struct file_lock *conf,
> - int result)
> +nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, int result)
> {
> block->b_flags |= B_GOT_CALLBACK;
> if (result == 0)
> block->b_granted = 1;
> else
> block->b_flags |= B_TIMED_OUT;
> - if (conf) {
> - if (block->b_fl)
> - __locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf);
> - }
> }
>
> -static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf,
> - int result)
> +static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, int result)
> {
> struct nlm_block *block;
> int rc = -ENOENT;
> @@ -697,7 +691,7 @@ static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf,
> rc = -ENOLCK;
> break;
> }
> - nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(block, conf, result);
> + nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(block, result);
> } else if (result == 0)
> block->b_granted = 1;
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 36b8648..6150125 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ struct lock_manager_operations {
> int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2);
> unsigned long (*lm_owner_key)(struct file_lock *fl);
> void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *fl); /* unblock callback */
> - int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf, int result);
> + int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *fl, int result);
> void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *fl);
> int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **fl, int type);
> };
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton-vpEMnDpepFuMZCB2o+C8xQ@public.gmane.org>
--
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 14:43 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Layton @ 2014-07-01 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Perches
Cc: Christine Caulfield, David Teigland, Trond Myklebust,
J. Bruce Fields, cluster-devel, linux-kernel, linux-nfs,
linux-fsdevel
On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> is always NULL.
>
> How about removing it?
>
> This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> but it should be clear enough...
>
ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
locking code.
> ---
> fs/dlm/plock.c | 8 ++++----
> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 12 +++---------
> include/linux/fs.h | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/plock.c b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> index e59d332..e0ab3a9 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/plock.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/plock.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct plock_op {
>
> struct plock_xop {
> struct plock_op xop;
> - int (*callback)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
> + int (*callback)(struct file_lock *fl, int result);
> void *fl;
> void *file;
> struct file_lock flc;
> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> struct file *file;
> struct file_lock *fl;
> struct file_lock *flc;
> - int (*notify)(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *cont, int result) = NULL;
> + int (*notify)(struct file_lock *fl, int result) = NULL;
> struct plock_xop *xop = (struct plock_xop *)op;
> int rv = 0;
>
> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> notify = xop->callback;
>
> if (op->info.rv) {
> - notify(fl, NULL, op->info.rv);
> + notify(fl, op->info.rv);
> goto out;
> }
>
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static int dlm_plock_callback(struct plock_op *op)
> (unsigned long long)op->info.number, file, fl);
> }
>
> - rv = notify(fl, NULL, 0);
> + rv = notify(fl, 0);
> if (rv) {
> /* XXX: We need to cancel the fs lock here: */
> log_print("dlm_plock_callback: lock granted after lock request "
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index ab798a8..2a61701 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -667,22 +667,16 @@ nlmsvc_cancel_blocked(struct net *net, struct nlm_file *file, struct nlm_lock *l
> * deferred rpc for GETLK and SETLK.
> */
> static void
> -nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, struct file_lock *conf,
> - int result)
> +nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(struct nlm_block *block, int result)
> {
> block->b_flags |= B_GOT_CALLBACK;
> if (result == 0)
> block->b_granted = 1;
> else
> block->b_flags |= B_TIMED_OUT;
> - if (conf) {
> - if (block->b_fl)
> - __locks_copy_lock(block->b_fl, conf);
> - }
> }
>
> -static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf,
> - int result)
> +static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, int result)
> {
> struct nlm_block *block;
> int rc = -ENOENT;
> @@ -697,7 +691,7 @@ static int nlmsvc_grant_deferred(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf,
> rc = -ENOLCK;
> break;
> }
> - nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(block, conf, result);
> + nlmsvc_update_deferred_block(block, result);
> } else if (result == 0)
> block->b_granted = 1;
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 36b8648..6150125 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -842,7 +842,7 @@ struct lock_manager_operations {
> int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2);
> unsigned long (*lm_owner_key)(struct file_lock *fl);
> void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *fl); /* unblock callback */
> - int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf, int result);
> + int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *fl, int result);
> void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *fl);
> int (*lm_change)(struct file_lock **fl, int type);
> };
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
2014-07-01 14:43 ` Jeff Layton
(?)
@ 2014-07-01 16:46 ` David Teigland
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > is always NULL.
> >
> > How about removing it?
> >
> > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > but it should be clear enough...
> >
>
> ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> locking code.
Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
dlm; it never really worked.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 16:46 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Layton
Cc: Joe Perches, Christine Caulfield, Trond Myklebust,
J. Bruce Fields, cluster-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > is always NULL.
> >
> > How about removing it?
> >
> > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > but it should be clear enough...
> >
>
> ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> locking code.
Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
dlm; it never really worked.
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 16:46 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Layton
Cc: Joe Perches, Christine Caulfield, Trond Myklebust,
J. Bruce Fields, cluster-devel, linux-kernel, linux-nfs,
linux-fsdevel
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > is always NULL.
> >
> > How about removing it?
> >
> > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > but it should be clear enough...
> >
>
> ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> locking code.
Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
dlm; it never really worked.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
2014-07-01 16:46 ` David Teigland
@ 2014-07-01 17:16 ` Bob Peterson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bob Peterson @ 2014-07-01 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > > is always NULL.
> > >
> > > How about removing it?
> > >
> > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > > but it should be clear enough...
> > >
> >
> > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> > locking code.
>
> Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
> dlm; it never really worked.
>
> Dave
Hi,
GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path
(gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain
amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will
be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday).
I'm all for getting rid of useless parameters, and I've done so on
several occasions in GFS2.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 17:16 ` Bob Peterson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Bob Peterson @ 2014-07-01 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Teigland
Cc: Jeff Layton, cluster-devel, linux-nfs, Trond Myklebust,
linux-kernel, J. Bruce Fields, linux-fsdevel, Joe Perches
----- Original Message -----
> On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> >
> > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > > is always NULL.
> > >
> > > How about removing it?
> > >
> > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > > but it should be clear enough...
> > >
> >
> > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> > locking code.
>
> Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
> dlm; it never really worked.
>
> Dave
Hi,
GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path
(gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain
amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will
be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday).
I'm all for getting rid of useless parameters, and I've done so on
several occasions in GFS2.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Red Hat File Systems
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
2014-07-01 17:16 ` Bob Peterson
(?)
@ 2014-07-01 17:22 ` David Teigland
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > > > is always NULL.
> > > >
> > > > How about removing it?
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > > > but it should be clear enough...
> > > >
> > >
> > > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> > > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> > > locking code.
> >
> > Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
> > dlm; it never really worked.
> GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path
> (gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain
> amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will
> be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday).
This is about deferred file locks from NFS, not gfs2's "deferred" lock mode.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 17:22 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Peterson
Cc: Jeff Layton, cluster-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA,
linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Trond Myklebust,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, J. Bruce Fields,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Joe Perches
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > > Joe Perches <joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > > > is always NULL.
> > > >
> > > > How about removing it?
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > > > but it should be clear enough...
> > > >
> > >
> > > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> > > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> > > locking code.
> >
> > Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
> > dlm; it never really worked.
> GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path
> (gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain
> amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will
> be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday).
This is about deferred file locks from NFS, not gfs2's "deferred" lock mode.
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Cluster-devel] [RFC PATCH] dlm: Remove unused conf from lm_grant
@ 2014-07-01 17:22 ` David Teigland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: David Teigland @ 2014-07-01 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Peterson
Cc: Jeff Layton, cluster-devel, linux-nfs, Trond Myklebust,
linux-kernel, J. Bruce Fields, linux-fsdevel, Joe Perches
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:43:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 06:20:10 -0700
> > > Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > While doing a bit of adding argument names to fs.h,
> > > > I looked at lm_grant and it seems the 2nd argument
> > > > is always NULL.
> > > >
> > > > How about removing it?
> > > >
> > > > This doesn't apply as it depends on some other patches
> > > > but it should be clear enough...
> > > >
> > >
> > > ACK on the general idea from my standpoint. Anything that simplifies
> > > the file locking interfaces is a good thing, particularly the deferred
> > > locking code.
> >
> > Fine with me. I'd be happy to remove all the deferred locking code from
> > dlm; it never really worked.
> GFS2 uses deferred locks, at the very least in its direct_io path
> (gfs2_direct_IO in aops.c). So AFAIK we can't remove THAT without a certain
> amount of pain. Steve is on vacation / holiday this week, but he will
> be back on Thursday and Friday (which is a holiday).
This is about deferred file locks from NFS, not gfs2's "deferred" lock mode.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread