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

lockd: push lock_flocks down

Browse Source 
lockd should use lock_flocks() instead of lock_kernel()
to lock against posix locks accessing the i_flock list.

This is a prerequisite to turning lock_flocks into a
spinlock.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-26 22:55:40 +02:00
parent f9ba5375a8
commit 763641d812
4 changed files with 8 additions and 14 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
fs/lockd/svc.c
View File

@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
#include <linux/in.h>
#include <linux/uio.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/smp_lock.h>
#include <linux/mutex.h>
#include <linux/kthread.h>
#include <linux/freezer.h>
@ -130,15 +129,6 @@ lockd(void *vrqstp)
dprintk("NFS locking service started (ver " LOCKD_VERSION ").\n");
/*
* FIXME: it would be nice if lockd didn't spend its entire life
* running under the BKL. At the very least, it would be good to
* have someone clarify what it's intended to protect here. I've
* seen some handwavy posts about posix locking needing to be
* done under the BKL, but it's far from clear.
*/
lock_kernel();
if (!nlm_timeout)
nlm_timeout = LOCKD_DFLT_TIMEO;
nlmsvc_timeout = nlm_timeout * HZ;
@ -195,7 +185,6 @@ lockd(void *vrqstp)
if (nlmsvc_ops)
nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
nlm_shutdown_hosts();
unlock_kernel();
return 0;
}