Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] nfsd: Initial implementation of NFSv4 Courteous Server

[dai.ngo@oracle.com]

On 6/30/21 11:05 AM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 10:51:27AM -0700, dai.ngo@oracle.com wrote:
>>> On 6/28/21 1:23 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>> where ->fl_expire_lock is a new lock callback with second
>>>> argument "check"
>>>> where:
>>>>
>>>>      check = 1 means: just check whether this lock could be freed
>> Why do we need this, is there a use case for it? can we just always try
>> to expire the lock and return success/fail?
> We can't expire the client while holding the flc_lock.  And once we drop
> that lock we need to restart the loop.  Clearly we can't do that every
> time.
>
> (So, my code was wrong, it should have been:
>
>
> 	if (fl->fl_lops->fl_expire_lock(fl, 1)) {
> 		spin_unlock(&ct->flc_lock);
> 		fl->fl_lops->fl_expire_locks(fl, 0);
> 		goto retry;
> 	}
>
> )

This is what I currently have:

retry:
                 list_for_each_entry(fl, &ctx->flc_posix, fl_list) {
                         if (!posix_locks_conflict(request, fl))
                                 continue;

                         if (fl->fl_lmops && fl->fl_lmops->lm_expire_lock) {
                                 spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
                                 ret = fl->fl_lmops->lm_expire_lock(fl, 0);
                                 spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
                                 if (ret)
                                         goto retry;
                         }

                         if (conflock)
                                 locks_copy_conflock(conflock, fl);

>
> But the 1 and 0 cases are starting to look pretty different; maybe they
> should be two different callbacks.

why the case of 1 (test only) is needed,  who would use this call?

-Dai

>
> --b.