Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix lockd panic

[Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>]

Wendy Cheng wrote:

> The point here is "with this patch, f_locks it not used at all any 
> more." Note that we have a nice inline function "nlm_file_inuse", why 
> should we use f_locks (that I assume people agree that it is awkward) 
> ? Could we simply drop f_locks all together in this section of code?
>
Start to have a second thought about this ....

Removing f_locks does make the code much more readable. However, if 
inode->i_flock list is long, e.g. large amount of (clients) hosts and/or 
processes from other hosts competing for the same lock, we don't want to 
do the list walk twice within nlm_traverse_files(). Intuitively this is 
unlikely but I prefer not changing the current behavior. As the result, 
I'm withdrawing the patch all together.

The first patch will handle the issue correctly. Will submit it after 
this post.

-- Wendy