Re: [PATCH 4/5] cifs: take reference to inode for oplock breaks

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:01:21 -0500
Steve French <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > As long as you can do so in a non-racy way, then I'm not opposed to
> > that long-term. The problem though is that I don't have a lot of
> > confidence in the open file tracking code. It's extremely hard to
> > follow and definitely has races. I don't think it's really possible to
> > do what you suggest safely until the open file tracking code has been
> > fixed.
> >
> > For now, I'm pretty sure this set should fix the problems that users
> > are hitting in the oplock codepath today. I'd like to fix that first
> > before we embark on a redesign of it.
> >
> 
> You may be right that this should be two stages, but your 2nd and 3rd patch
> are already large, so I doubt that it would grow (and might make it easier
> to follow and more logical).
> 

Any more thoughts on this patchset?

I've been looking over what it would take to fix up the open file
handle tracking and it's going to be a substantial set of patches (on
the order of the size of the cifs_iget patchset). I'd still like to do
that, but don't think we can wait until then to fix this set of
problems.

-- 
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>