From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/17] locks: __break_lease cleanup in preparation of allowing direct removal of leases Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:07:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20140904180725.GA11232@infradead.org> References: <1409834323-7171-1-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> <1409834323-7171-15-git-send-email-jlayton@primarydata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , "J. Bruce Fields" , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1409834323-7171-15-git-send-email-jlayton-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:40AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Eliminate an unneeded "flock" variable. We can use "fl" as a loop cursor > everywhere. Add a any_leases_conflict helper function as well to > consolidate a bit of code. Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig One thing that came to mind after starring at this code for a while and then seeing your cleanup: the sleep/wake patterns in __break_lease seem highly suboptimal, as we always wait for the break time on the first least found, why don't we simply take the max of the lease break times, and wait for that? I guess the case of lots of read leases just isn't common enough to bother.. -- 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