[PATCH 0/3] locks: trivial locks.c patches

[PATCH 0/3] locks: trivial locks.c patches

[Jeff Layton]

A few reasonably trivial patches for locks.c. Al, can you apply these
for 3.12?

Jeff Layton (3):
  locks: clean up comment typo
  locks: remove "inline" qualifier from fl_link manipulation functions
  locks: add __acquires and __releases annotations to locks_start and
    locks_stop

 fs/locks.c | 16 +++++++---------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 1/3] locks: clean up comment typo

[Jeff Layton]

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index a99adec..9f28359 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -581,7 +581,7 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
  * it seems like the reasonable thing to do.
  *
  * Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block
- * list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the
+ * list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring that the
  * i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock
  * in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty.
  */
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 2/3] locks: remove "inline" qualifier from fl_link manipulation functions

[Jeff Layton]

It's best to let the compiler decide that.

Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 9f28359..b1e5bfe 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -511,8 +511,7 @@ static int posix_same_owner(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2)
 }
 
 /* Must be called with the i_lock held! */
-static inline void
-locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
+static void locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
 {
 	lg_local_lock(&file_lock_lglock);
 	fl->fl_link_cpu = smp_processor_id();
@@ -521,8 +520,7 @@ locks_insert_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
 }
 
 /* Must be called with the i_lock held! */
-static inline void
-locks_delete_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
+static void locks_delete_global_locks(struct file_lock *fl)
 {
 	/*
 	 * Avoid taking lock if already unhashed. This is safe since this check
@@ -544,14 +542,12 @@ posix_owner_key(struct file_lock *fl)
 	return (unsigned long)fl->fl_owner;
 }
 
-static inline void
-locks_insert_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
+static void locks_insert_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
 	hash_add(blocked_hash, &waiter->fl_link, posix_owner_key(waiter));
 }
 
-static inline void
-locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
+static void locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
 	hash_del(&waiter->fl_link);
 }
-- 
1.8.3.1

[PATCH 3/3] locks: add __acquires and __releases annotations to locks_start and locks_stop

[Jeff Layton]

...to make sparse happy.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index b1e5bfe..b1e321e 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -2390,6 +2390,7 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
 }
 
 static void *locks_start(struct seq_file *f, loff_t *pos)
+	__acquires(&blocked_lock_lock)
 {
 	struct locks_iterator *iter = f->private;
 
@@ -2408,6 +2409,7 @@ static void *locks_next(struct seq_file *f, void *v, loff_t *pos)
 }
 
 static void locks_stop(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
+	__releases(&blocked_lock_lock)
 {
 	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
 	lg_global_unlock(&file_lock_lglock);
-- 
1.8.3.1