From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from relay.parallels.com ([195.214.232.42]:49573 "EHLO relay.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753183Ab2KSIjv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:39:51 -0500 Message-ID: <50A9F03B.1010909@parallels.com> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:39:23 +0400 From: Stanislav Kinsbursky MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bfields@fieldses.org" CC: Jeff Layton , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: NFSd state: nfs4_lock_state() and nfs4_lock_state() References: <50A622AE.3080809@parallels.com> <20121116165845.GA32183@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20121116165845.GA32183@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? -- Best regards, Stanislav Kinsbursky