On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:47:03 -0300 (BRT) Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > static inline int get_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
> > {
> > - if (inode->i_flock && (inode->i_flock->fl_flags & FL_LEASE))
> > + if (inode->i_flock)
> > return __get_lease(inode, mode);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Why do you remove the FL_LEASE check here?
Because there is a race between checking inode->i_flock and
inode->i_flock->fl_flags which a couple of people have actually
hit ... The check for FL_EASE is done again in __get_lease
but protected by the BKL.
This is just an optimisation and having the check here is only
faster in the case where there is a lock held that is NOT a lease.
This was the race fix provided by Willy.
-- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/