lk/linux-kernel-test
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

[PATCH] knfsd: Correctly handle error condition from lockd_up

Browse Source 
If lockd_up fails - what should we expect?  Do we have to later call
lockd_down?

Well the nfs client thinks "no", the nfs server thinks "yes".  lockd thinks
"yes".

The only answer that really makes sense is "no" !!

So:
  Make lockd_up only increment  nlmsvc_users on success.
  Make nfsd handle errors from lockd_up properly.
  Make sure lockd_up(0) never fails when lockd is running
    so that the 'reclaimer' call to lockd_up doesn't need to
    be error checked.

Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Signed-off-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
NeilBrown
2006-10-02 02:17:53 -07:00
committed by Linus Torvalds
parent 7dcf91ec66
commit 4a3ae42dc3
3 changed files with 16 additions and 14 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
fs/lockd/svc.c
View File

@ -253,16 +253,12 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'family' option when IPv6 is supported ?? */
int error = 0;
mutex_lock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
/*
* Unconditionally increment the user count ... this is
* the number of clients who _want_ a lockd process.
*/
nlmsvc_users++;
/*
* Check whether we're already up and running.
*/
if (nlmsvc_pid) {
error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
if (proto)
error = make_socks(nlmsvc_serv, proto);
goto out;
}
@ -270,7 +266,7 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'family' option when IPv6 is supported ?? */
* Sanity check: if there's no pid,
* we should be the first user ...
*/
if (nlmsvc_users > 1)
if (nlmsvc_users)
printk(KERN_WARNING
"lockd_up: no pid, %d users??\n", nlmsvc_users);
@ -302,6 +298,8 @@ lockd_up(int proto) /* Maybe add a 'family' option when IPv6 is supported ?? */
destroy_and_out:
svc_destroy(serv);
out:
if (!error)
nlmsvc_users++;
mutex_unlock(&nlmsvc_mutex);
return error;
}