From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suresh Jayaraman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] cifs: clean up management of open filehandle (try #2) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:10:18 +0530 Message-ID: <4CAEE702.8070500@suse.de> References: <1286394857-32541-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: smfrench-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1286394857-32541-1-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: On 10/07/2010 01:24 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > This is the second attempt at the patchset to clean up the management > of open filehandles in CIFS. The main changes are: > > 1) elimination of some more unnecessary NULL pointer checks > > 2) the cifs_file_list_lock (aka GlobalSMBSeslock) has been left as a > rwlock_t, though it has been renamed as before > > 3) the order of operations in cifs_oplock_break_put has been fixed -- > previously it put the sb reference before the cifsFileInfo reference > which could have led to oopses. > > 4) cifs_flush only waits for writeback to complete on filehandles that > were opened with FMODE_WRITE set. > > The patchset has passed several hours running the connectathon testsuite > in a loop. > > Suresh and Shaggy both sent acks for various parts of the patchset, but > the last few patches had enough substantial changes that I didn't want > to add them without their "re-acks". > Except for the patches [10/15] and [13/15] for which it appears spinlock is the way to go, rest of the patches look fine to me. Reviewed-by: Suresh Jayaraman