From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48934 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288Ab3HLGxQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:53:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:53:06 +1000 From: NeilBrown To: "Myklebust, Trond" Cc: NFS Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] remove incorrect "Lock reclaim failed" warning when delegation is in force. Message-ID: <20130812165306.728d2841@notabene.brown> In-Reply-To: <1375977089.4590.4.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> References: <20130808125937.126d8ef1@notabene.brown> <1375977089.4590.4.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/GGtJpFGA_3dIJGGy2DkTNJg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --Sig_/GGtJpFGA_3dIJGGy2DkTNJg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:51:30 +0000 "Myklebust, Trond" wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 12:59 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to track down a strange problem with state ids going bad > > (possibly linked to ntp changing the system time on the non-Linux serv= er) > > and am still learning about how the state management works. > >=20 > > But I've come across an error where I don't think there should be one. > >=20 > > For whatever reason the client gets a BAD_STATEID on a file that it ha= s a > > lock on. The open gets a write delegation so that when it runs > > nfs4_reclaim_locks(), nfs4_lock_reclaim aborts early without doing any= thing > > (it doesn't need to because there is a delegation). > > But the code below then checks that NFS_LOCK_INITIALIZED is set on all= lock > > states. But it isn't because nfs4_clear_open_state cleared it and > > nfs4_lock_reclaim didn't bother setting it. > >=20 > > So I think the error should only be printed if there is no delegated s= tate, > > hence this patch. > >=20 > > Does it look right, or have I misunderstood something? > >=20 >=20 > Hi Neil, >=20 > That analysis looks correct. Can you resend the patch with an > appropriate signed-off-by and changelog entry? Thanks. I've resent separately. NeilBrown --Sig_/GGtJpFGA_3dIJGGy2DkTNJg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUgiGUjnsnt1WYoG5AQJPDhAAjOx12KdCT+vjkG9SXjbbgV3lE8LP5k9w OdOY+pDgSLaslw4h/GsnNY8aDVqDsLISvUP/8bmsvwqqnPuITVBUWKAkKQk6jJRM eQRmgRJnVg9d14z7BaOdBbIyG5BhUia2oxNvTZXip1Q95B4hDUy0QU+E/ZKx2tuG GrVIUJRQ+C3M1fHBrc0FysgHTZ/Lg+a7OHHMunQY09L5O/A06OnGDkJMqjVtBIIF tYR8Oxnc2B3zDE0d3mBorPKxev+nW6voCmNoIDFkiF6CNzpKXEFAvNo1vsRyoEVY uMLEmdm1FHXgT7qvDetmDB2XhmqGltf1bu+/oy0qr24wcYcY/E0Ys3LpCoWjaGY5 Yz/F7f5k158v7iV/OV/aK7dy8rV3aaD4yq+nh1pBAAKLPFCeQw8rvrhv5S4nUAeN 8aCTFFYZz56r4gUES2fG3XQpOfHBMbKffj4pMfb1ffm1UhqvezuCdVxUfi1mP3gG 6GuMeKICaCWR7wwfElcCJ1yXDgz7iBlvFINMxFqS93vnK8csXthNMyooLhhGqvwu hBDyk+Kc+OAVI3sDmbVv5XmFiFPoo/llEOusMyTPGfNpCrFaebzfwjKOSYTnml+z Ffodh+QD0fdpw16nnoz+E3dyUDwLOCaaSt1tKI9PqO0phpKrNK4wWE/VLher+gqY F28QftrvM6g= =CjNv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/GGtJpFGA_3dIJGGy2DkTNJg--