From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5749CC433E0 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E09207D5 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726007AbgFAXKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:10:40 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55966 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725800AbgFAXKk (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jun 2020 19:10:40 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB3CAE9D; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 23:10:40 +0000 (UTC) From: NeilBrown To: yangerkun , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jlayton@kernel.org, neilb@suse.com Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:10:31 +1000 Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: add locks_move_blocks in posix_lock_inode In-Reply-To: <20200601091616.34137-1-yangerkun@huawei.com> References: <20200601091616.34137-1-yangerkun@huawei.com> Message-ID: <877dwq757c.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 > --- > 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, st= ruct file_lock *request, > if (!new_fl) > goto out; > locks_copy_lock(new_fl, request); > + locks_move_blocks(new_fl, request); > request =3D new_fl; > new_fl =3D NULL; > locks_insert_lock_ctx(request, &fl->fl_list); > --=20 > 2.21.3 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAl7ViucACgkQOeye3VZi gbng0g//WtmhUjIdqgrHREgsiy9mjpEvQ1Ua730jTlSnkxNNTUrCmqjgn+JwecEa AfW58U5OROu8i2oOA5/cFVfuVr3GgSzM2IWJKT6z7yj4VRJ0PYrNNlxUDQz+ObCg 8HojpjV7NJ+9KEkwJDZwByAeReS6t4XwnY7lvMYaCYu0Amw2i2+qW4Xpzh5kAshd 7SRycudZCA9g92dJHWt5oMd0tQmxTFGNBZ13ti4ThTKD3w+AN1t7/uSHmtno7dtf ITq931WAu4DqXPJmgIG2p2ZqD4t99TknB9/8053lnTmrIyTCFHfo4dzcQjLjJC3J oFW+A7sC+IDm+YbcQL4XbcLvC4DIo5MTLNNxb5+Cz5WnHGLJJVFBWM+f/Z8xXCJa qq4I/teAYyzk0y6D6XS/9Zfgc0XtK4s6n6CwkRI3OeBvutmomDUbOiL4my+FmnCR KA7Sxyeu4UqUYf6bsTQtgek/s4PQ3mH5fy6da9YCh8R9jrA+YfYJQZx7y61iWqmK rfzfaEnvQQXDGGWncxLfNSb2Tr5scSrJE+oyhvhu+l02d2wspg09JMoa0uqd5a15 Fey1ZVFYsF5YilFrzlptZOxIZ3bGUqiYiRAaKeXoJLzqMHPEfa7gLAd5Z2EcDpcX OZGf02rMZUw6ausnBa4O7141WbI2XQ3su+DLfr+cjw9DFi1HYLU= =8TRf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--