Re: [PATCH] dlm: improve lock management and concurrency control

[kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>]

Hi Alessio,

kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:

[auto build test WARNING on teigland-dlm/next]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.17-rc4 next-20250905]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Alessio-Attilio/dlm-improve-lock-management-and-concurrency-control/20250906-000819
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/teigland/linux-dlm.git next
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250905160552.496879-1-alessio.attilio.dev%40gmail.com
patch subject: [PATCH] dlm: improve lock management and concurrency control
config: sh-randconfig-r071-20250906 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250906/202509061809.348XSVqi-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: sh4-linux-gcc (GCC) 10.5.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250906/202509061809.348XSVqi-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202509061809.348XSVqi-lkp@intel.com/

All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):

>> fs/dlm/lock.c:6153:24: warning: 'del_proc_lock' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
    6153 | static struct dlm_lkb *del_proc_lock(struct dlm_ls *ls,
         |                        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~


vim +/del_proc_lock +6153 fs/dlm/lock.c

597d0cae0f99f6 David Teigland  2006-07-12  6148  
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6149  /* We have to release clear_proc_locks mutex before calling unlock_proc_lock()
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6150     (which does lock_rsb) due to deadlock with receiving a message that does
23e8e1aaacb10d David Teigland  2011-04-05  6151     lock_rsb followed by dlm_user_add_cb() */
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6152  
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28 @6153  static struct dlm_lkb *del_proc_lock(struct dlm_ls *ls,
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6154  				     struct dlm_user_proc *proc)
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6155  {
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6156  	struct dlm_lkb *lkb = NULL;
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6157  
578acf9a87a875 Alexander Aring 2024-04-02  6158  	spin_lock_bh(&ls->ls_clear_proc_locks);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6159  	if (list_empty(&proc->locks))
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6160  		goto out;
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6161  
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6162  	lkb = list_entry(proc->locks.next, struct dlm_lkb, lkb_ownqueue);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6163  	list_del_init(&lkb->lkb_ownqueue);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6164  
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6165  	if (lkb->lkb_exflags & DLM_LKF_PERSISTENT)
8a39dcd9c32dd3 Alexander Aring 2023-03-06  6166  		set_bit(DLM_DFL_ORPHAN_BIT, &lkb->lkb_dflags);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6167  	else
e1af8728f600f6 Alexander Aring 2023-03-06  6168  		set_bit(DLM_IFL_DEAD_BIT, &lkb->lkb_iflags);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6169   out:
578acf9a87a875 Alexander Aring 2024-04-02  6170  	spin_unlock_bh(&ls->ls_clear_proc_locks);
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6171  	return lkb;
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6172  }
ef0c2bb05f40f9 David Teigland  2007-03-28  6173  

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki