Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic

[Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>]

Neil Brown wrote:

>
>If I'm reading this correctly, this bug is introduced by your previous
>patch.
>  
>
Depending on how you see the issue. From my end, I view this as the 
existing code has a "trap" and I fell into it. This is probably a chance 
to clean up this logic.

>The important difference between the old code and the new code here is
>that the old code tests "file->f_locks" while the new code iterates
>through i_flock to see if there are any lockd locks.
>
>f_locks is set to a count of lockd locks in nlm_traverse_locks which
>*was* always called by nlm_inspect_file which is called immediately
>before the code you are changing.
>But since your patch, nlm_inspect_file does not always call
>nlm_traverse_locks, so there is a chance that f_locks is wrong.
>
>With this patch, f_locks it not used at all any more.
>  
>
Yes, a fair description of the issue !

>Introducing a bug in one patch and fixing in the next is bad style.
>  
>
ok .....

>Some options:
>
> Have an initial patch which removes all references to f_locks and
> includes the change in this patch.  With that in place your main
> patch won't introduce a bug.  If you do this, you should attempt to
> understand and justify the performance impact (does nlm_traverse_files
> become quadratic in number of locks.  Is that acceptable?).
>
> Change the first patch to explicitly update f_count if you bypass the
> call to nlm_inspect_file.
>
> something else???
>  
>

Let's see what hch says in another email... will come back to this soon.

>So NAK for this one in it's current form... unless I've misunderstood
>something.
>
>  
>
I expect this :)

-- Wendy