Re: [PATCH] NFSd: simplify locking in nfsd_recall_delegations()

[Benny Halevy]

On 2012-05-22 13:28, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote:
> Holding of client_mutex looks redundant here - holding of recall_lock looks
> enough.

Looking at the code, agreed.

Benny

> 
> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c |    2 --
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index f004e61..fdef9fc 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -4744,11 +4744,9 @@ void nfsd_recall_delegations(u64 num)
>  {
>  	unsigned int count;
>  
> -	nfs4_lock_state();
>  	spin_lock(&recall_lock);
>  	count = nfsd_process_n_delegations(num, nfsd_break_one_deleg, NULL);
>  	spin_unlock(&recall_lock);
> -	nfs4_unlock_state();
>  
>  	printk(KERN_INFO "NFSD: Recalled %d delegations", count);
>  }
> 
> --
> 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/