Reorganize nlmsvc_grant_blocked() to make full use of posix_lock_file(). Note
that there's no need for separate calls to posix_test_lock(),
posix_locks_deadlock(), or posix_block_lock().
Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Slightly more consistent dprintk error reporting, consolidate some up()'s.
Signed-off-by: Andy Adamson <andros@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
If the server receives an NLM cancel call and finds no waiting lock to
cancel, then chances are the lock has already been applied, and the client
just hadn't yet processed the NLM granted callback before it sent the
cancel.
The Open Group text, for example, perimts a server to return either success
(LCK_GRANTED) or failure (LCK_DENIED) in this case. But returning an error
seems more helpful; the client may be able to use it to recognize that a
race has occurred and to recover from the race.
So, modify the relevant functions to return an error in this case.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
The fl_next check here is superfluous (and possibly a layering violation).
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Currently when lockd gets an NLM_CANCEL request, it also does an unlock for
the same range. This is incorrect.
The Open Group documentation says that "This procedure cancels an
*outstanding* blocked lock request." (Emphasis mine.)
Also, consider a client that holds a lock on the first byte of a file, and
requests a lock on the entire file. If the client cancels that request
(perhaps because the requesting process is signalled), the server shouldn't
apply perform an unlock on the entire file, since that will also remove the
previous lock that the client was already granted.
Or consider a lock request that actually *downgraded* an exclusive lock to
a shared lock.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Slightly simpler logic here makes it more trivial to verify that the up's
and down's are balanced here. Break out an assignment from a conditional
while we're at it.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Shrink the RPC task structure. Instead of storing separate pointers
for task->tk_exit and task->tk_release, put them in a structure.
Also pass the user data pointer as a parameter instead of passing it via
task->tk_calldata. This enables us to nest callbacks.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
