On Mon, Jun 01 2020, yangerkun wrote:

> We forget to call locks_move_blocks in posix_lock_inode when try to
> process same owner and different types.
>

This patch is not necessary.
The caller of posix_lock_inode() must calls locks_delete_block() on
'request', and that will remove all blocked request and retry them.

So calling locks_move_blocks() here is at most an optimization.  Maybe
it is a useful one.

What led you to suggesting this patch?  Were you just examining the
code, or was there some problem that you were trying to solve?

Thanks,
NeilBrown


> Signed-off-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index b8a31c1c4fff..36bd2c221786 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -1282,6 +1282,7 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
>  				if (!new_fl)
>  					goto out;
>  				locks_copy_lock(new_fl, request);
> +				locks_move_blocks(new_fl, request);
>  				request = new_fl;
>  				new_fl = NULL;
>  				locks_insert_lock_ctx(request, &fl->fl_list);
> -- 
> 2.21.3