From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:49648 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751772Ab2KSMqV (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:46:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:46:18 -0500 From: "bfields@fieldses.org" To: Stanislav Kinsbursky Cc: Jeff Layton , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: NFSd state: nfs4_lock_state() and nfs4_lock_state() Message-ID: <20121119124618.GA30084@fieldses.org> References: <50A622AE.3080809@parallels.com> <20121116165845.GA32183@fieldses.org> <50A9F03B.1010909@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <50A9F03B.1010909@parallels.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:39:23PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: > 16.11.2012 20:58, bfields@fieldses.org пишет: > > > >A patch follows: note it's a two-line patch, with 20 lines of changelog > >showing that I looked at what state might be shared by other threads and > >explaining why I think this is safe. > > > > Acked-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy > > >I think that's what we need to do: little patches that remove it from > >one or another part of the code with careful explanation of why it > >works. > > > > Yes, thanks. I'll also try to simplify nfsd_open() by little patches. > In general it looks like client_mutex protect two different things: > open owner state (which is containerised already, actually) and > files access. > So, probably, this client mutex have to be converted into two: > per-net one, which protects open owner state, and static one, which > protects files operations. > What do you think about it? That sounds right. --b.