Re: [Cluster-devel] [RFCv2 4/7] locks: update lock callback documentation
Jeff Layton <[email protected]> Wed, 16 Aug 2023 08:01:04 -0400
| Newsgroups | com.redhat.cluster-devel,dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-nfs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 2023-08-14 at 17:11 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote: > This patch updates the existing documentation regarding recent changes > to vfs_lock_file() and lm_grant() is set. In case of lm_grant() is set > we only handle FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED in case of FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is not > set. This is the case of an blocking lock request. Non-blocking lock > requests, when FL_SLEEP is not set, are handled in a synchronized way. > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <[email protected]> > --- > fs/locks.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > index df8b26a42524..a8e51f462b43 100644 > --- a/fs/locks.c > +++ b/fs/locks.c > @@ -2255,21 +2255,21 @@ int fcntl_getlk(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct flock *flock) > * To avoid blocking kernel daemons, such as lockd, that need to acquire POSIX > * locks, the ->lock() interface may return asynchronously, before the lock has > * been granted or denied by the underlying filesystem, if (and only if) > - * lm_grant is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously > - * will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; they will set FL_SLEEP if (and only if) > - * the request is for a blocking lock. When ->lock() does return asynchronously, > - * it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when the lock > - * request completes. > - * If the request is for non-blocking lock the file system should return > - * FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED then try to get the lock and call the callback routine > - * with the result. If the request timed out the callback routine will return a > + * lm_grant and FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is set. Callers expecting ->lock() to return > + * asynchronously will only use F_SETLK, not F_SETLKW; When ->lock() does return Isn't the above backward? Shouldn't it say "Callers expecting ->lock() to return asynchronously will only use F_SETLKW, not F_SETLK" ? > + * asynchronously, it must return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED, and call ->lm_grant() when > + * the lock request completes. The lm_grant() callback must be called in a > + * sleepable context. > + * > + * If the request timed out the ->lm_grant() callback routine will return a > * nonzero return code and the file system should release the lock. The file > - * system is also responsible to keep a corresponding posix lock when it > - * grants a lock so the VFS can find out which locks are locally held and do > - * the correct lock cleanup when required. > - * The underlying filesystem must not drop the kernel lock or call > - * ->lm_grant() before returning to the caller with a FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED > - * return code. > + * system is also responsible to keep a corresponding posix lock when it grants > + * a lock so the VFS can find out which locks are locally held and do the correct > + * lock cleanup when required. > + * > + * If the request is for non-blocking lock (when F_SETLK and FL_SLEEP in fl_flags is not set) > + * the file system should return -EAGAIN if failed to acquire or zero if acquiring was > + * successfully without calling the ->lm_grant() callback routine. > */ > int vfs_lock_file(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, struct file_lock *fl, struct file_lock *conf) > { -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]>