Re: nfsd changes for 2.6.37

[Bryan Schumaker]

Hi

I left the one call because I was unable to figure out what was being protected with the BKL in that section of the code.  I figured I would leave it for the maintainers, since they know more about the code than I do.

Bryan

On 10/26/2010 04:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2010 18:45:50 J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> Bryan Schumaker (1):
>>       lockd: Mostly remove BKL from the server
> 
> Could you explain the "mostly" part of this commit?
> 
> The commit message only says "This patch removes all
> but one call to lock_kernel() from the server." This one
> call is what keeps us from removing the BKL from fs/locks.c
> because I can't tell if you still suspect that lockd
> needs to lock against posix file locks or if there was
> a different reason for leaving it in.
> 
> I can't think of anything else that this might be locking
> against because everything that might interact with lockd
> now does not use the BKL any more and lockd is
> single-threaded by definition.
> 
> My guess is that the only thing that really needs to
> lock_flocks() in lockd are the nlm_file_inuse and
> nlm_traverse_locks functions because they traverse
> the inode->i_flock list. All the exported functions
> from fs/lock.c take care of locking in their own way
> (possibly not lease_get_time, as I just discovered,
> but that was never called under the BKL...).
> 
> 	Arnd
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/