From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] locks: move freeing of leases outside of i_lock Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 09:08:04 -0700 Message-ID: <20140824160804.GH15908@infradead.org> References: <1408804878-1331-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <1408804878-1331-10-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, cluster-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1408804878-1331-10-git-send-email-jlayton-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-cifs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:41:17AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > There was only one place where we still could free a file_lock while > holding the i_lock -- lease_modify. Add a new list_head argument to the > lm_change operation, pass in a private list when calling it, and fix > those callers to dispose of the list once the lock has been dropped. Why do we care about locks held when simply freeing a piece of memory?