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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 6247AC606C1 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E6920693 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:09:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bIHChhZi" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388179AbfGHQJo (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:09:44 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-f195.google.com ([209.85.219.195]:41868 "EHLO mail-yb1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728082AbfGHQJo (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:09:44 -0400 Received: by mail-yb1-f195.google.com with SMTP id 13so1186997ybx.8; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 09:09:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QsSwO+ugsOBI16xFNtRc8q7T85XnrFgpAlzVCDTaX/E=; b=bIHChhZi81Hvjog0qiLbxcaO1jEUw7joLB3eRUK84fA9Cd4RrF5XJAc9pVVuCiRlP0 7dMcwRDmX53nkb8Yc8xLEV8cm7xj+kguPv6Y2odF9xw4Tzjx/kgbExs202UevOrwObZP kd/CCTpF4PeZUZM3es67Lh51JHk+N8YdjQnUbdtolHEWL8yFK8JZzOv+yF1XUZIY7CvG Z+vBhk2ANz86uYZlsVgTNkZpOD8fMdXZdtPpdrHgsHrmXqE42MWnTN2fPBTKioH1xlAi J2KS64k7XDeALAdL4PAdr1ij9DD3l/hdSZubgzs1+DFs7L+kD4gYFNk1qs2nwzmLDdzG RIRA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QsSwO+ugsOBI16xFNtRc8q7T85XnrFgpAlzVCDTaX/E=; b=I4vKMHUqfqZYhDMOuWpW8+xOvH/HxVXTfDr9W/uFDyuhlSD8aN3wRedMVYabsWZwgN 2Fo604g9+m0aNCbf54xIlU6lbuQGIeMxzeLHnHJnR9woUNIuGvC0J6bkwfR+TrosFy7z ZatCB9HtN6b5cWwOHVm8NWgZ1rA2IdjRimicPBdE7RHP8pWw9Q7jgx8x1JwVbsrKYG5w Lm+B/IPv04jbSYpsfeCPv0gA2HV7IHCGfAt6tqj8hPJA4TlDjqxaJ7AmdCCUXYXXgUwT 2YTvMOFSKtOQQYOesyG8YW640NXW1I/6JUWxHS4o00sXyYYNr8owG0Qk4/Ip80ct/6KG XnGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXYkuF/ZeaM8BZ8x3DFXmOLOfnxqckW6CiogkalbHxNPxeoZtGs cv1zasVFlz1lTr4UzzNLhZZ8b4QGmqsCuRg/egataw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDc7f0S+MUPiRzVeR//UiyhjDLntJhf7rTZTUlTnJsDLZDpOFE+w5B+9KilDjqXcYSb68II/pQJdqIyE4Tqq4= X-Received: by 2002:a25:c486:: with SMTP id u128mr11131932ybf.428.1562602183523; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 09:09:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190612172408.22671-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <2851a6b983ed8b5b858b3b336e70296204349762.camel@kernel.org> <20190613140804.GA2145@fieldses.org> In-Reply-To: <20190613140804.GA2145@fieldses.org> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:09:31 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease To: "J . Bruce Fields" Cc: Jeff Layton , Miklos Szeredi , linux-fsdevel , Linux NFS Mailing List , overlayfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:08 PM J . Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:28:49PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 4:22 PM Jeff Layton wrote: > > > Looks good to me. Aside from the minor nit above: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton > > > > > > I have one file locking patch queued up for v5.3 so far, but nothing for > > > v5.2. Miklos or Bruce, if either of you have anything to send to Linus > > > for v5.2 would you mind taking this one too? > > > > > > > Well. I did send a fix patch to Miklos for a bug introduced in v5.2-rc4, > > so... > > I could take it. I've modified it as below. > > I'm very happy with the patch, but not so much with the idea of 5.2 and > stable. > > It seems like a subtle change with some possibility of unintended side > effects. (E.g. I don't think this is true any more, but my memory is > that for a long time the only thing stopping nfsd from giving out > (probably broken) write delegations was an extra reference that it held > during processing.) And if the overlayfs bug's been there since 4.19, > then waiting a little longer seems OK? > Getting back to this now that the patch is on its way to Linus. Bruce, I was fine with waiting to 5.3 and I also removed CC: stable, but did you mean that patch is not appropriate for stable or just that we'd better wait a bit and let it soak in master before forwarding it to stable? Thanks, Amir.