From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262731AbTKYPW7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:22:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262738AbTKYPW7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:22:59 -0500 Received: from smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.36]:46684 "HELO smtp005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262731AbTKYPW6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:22:58 -0500 Message-ID: <3FC348D1.8060408@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 07:19:29 -0500 From: moiz kohari Reply-To: moiz_kohari@yahoo.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Posix record locking. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, I am looking at posix record locking with nfs and I have a couple of questions: 1. The fcntl_setlk() calls nfs_lock() (towards the end of fcntl_setlk by calling filp->f_op->lock), fcntl_setlk() then calls posix_lock_file() (where all the vfs magic happens for file locks). If nfs_lock() returns successful (server has granted the lock) but the subsequent posix_lock_file() fails (due to deadlock, conflict or low memory), we never go back to the server to clean up this lock. Is this a problem or am I missing something? 2. nfs_lock() calls nlmclnt_proc() after we pick up the kernel lock (lock_kernel()). The nlmclnt_proc() goes on to call: nlmclnt_lock() nlmclnt_call() rpc... Is this OK? Are we going over the wire while holding the kernel lock? Best Regards, Moiz