mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Dilger, Andreas" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
	James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org" <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock()
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:19:27 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB39E24B-FB97-4572-BC43-5D0836FAB526@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <150872002969.3340.14527228729799786026.stgit@noble>

On Oct 22, 2017, at 18:53, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
> 
> This is only ever set to LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC, so we can remove the arg
> and discard any code that is only run when it doesn't have that value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>

> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c |  110 ++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index 05e6b67b0e72..2d1fa2b33129 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ ldlm_flock_destroy(struct ldlm_lock *lock, enum ldlm_mode mode, __u64 flags)
>  * is released.
>  *
>  */
> -static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> +static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
> {
> 	struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
> 	struct ldlm_namespace *ns = ldlm_res_to_ns(res);
> @@ -138,8 +138,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 	const struct ldlm_callback_suite null_cbs = { };
> 
> 	CDEBUG(D_DLMTRACE,
> -	       "flags %#llx owner %llu pid %u mode %u start %llu end %llu\n",
> -	       *flags, new->l_policy_data.l_flock.owner,
> +	       "owner %llu pid %u mode %u start %llu end %llu\n",
> +	       new->l_policy_data.l_flock.owner,
> 	       new->l_policy_data.l_flock.pid, mode,
> 	       req->l_policy_data.l_flock.start,
> 	       req->l_policy_data.l_flock.end);
> @@ -150,74 +150,16 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 	req->l_blocking_ast = NULL;
> 
> reprocess:
> -	if ((*flags == LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC) || (mode == LCK_NL)) {
> -		/* This loop determines where this processes locks start
> -		 * in the resource lr_granted list.
> -		 */
> -		list_for_each(tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
> -			lock = list_entry(tmp, struct ldlm_lock,
> -					  l_res_link);
> -			if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
> -				ownlocks = tmp;
> -				break;
> -			}
> -		}
> -	} else {
> -		int reprocess_failed = 0;
> -
> -		lockmode_verify(mode);
> -
> -		/* This loop determines if there are existing locks
> -		 * that conflict with the new lock request.
> -		 */
> -		list_for_each(tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
> -			lock = list_entry(tmp, struct ldlm_lock,
> -					  l_res_link);
> -
> -			if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
> -				if (!ownlocks)
> -					ownlocks = tmp;
> -				continue;
> -			}
> -
> -			/* locks are compatible, overlap doesn't matter */
> -			if (lockmode_compat(lock->l_granted_mode, mode))
> -				continue;
> -
> -			if (!ldlm_flocks_overlap(lock, req))
> -				continue;
> -
> -			if (*flags & LDLM_FL_BLOCK_NOWAIT) {
> -				ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> -				return LDLM_ITER_STOP;
> -			}
> -
> -			if (*flags & LDLM_FL_TEST_LOCK) {
> -				ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> -				req->l_req_mode = lock->l_granted_mode;
> -				req->l_policy_data.l_flock.pid =
> -					lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.pid;
> -				req->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
> -					lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
> -				req->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
> -					lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
> -				*flags |= LDLM_FL_LOCK_CHANGED;
> -				return LDLM_ITER_STOP;
> -			}
> -
> -			ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, &res->lr_waiting, req);
> -			*flags |= LDLM_FL_BLOCK_GRANTED;
> -			return LDLM_ITER_STOP;
> +	/* This loop determines where this processes locks start
> +	 * in the resource lr_granted list.
> +	 */
> +	list_for_each(tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
> +		lock = list_entry(tmp, struct ldlm_lock,
> +				  l_res_link);
> +		if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
> +			ownlocks = tmp;
> +			break;
> 		}
> -		if (reprocess_failed)
> -			return LDLM_ITER_CONTINUE;
> -	}
> -
> -	if (*flags & LDLM_FL_TEST_LOCK) {
> -		ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> -		req->l_req_mode = LCK_NL;
> -		*flags |= LDLM_FL_LOCK_CHANGED;
> -		return LDLM_ITER_STOP;
> 	}
> 
> 	/* Scan the locks owned by this process that overlap this request.
> @@ -267,7 +209,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 			}
> 
> 			if (added) {
> -				ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, mode, *flags);
> +				ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, mode,
> +						   LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC);
> 			} else {
> 				new = lock;
> 				added = 1;
> @@ -293,7 +236,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 					new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end + 1;
> 				break;
> 			}
> -			ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, lock->l_req_mode, *flags);
> +			ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, lock->l_req_mode,
> +					   LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC);
> 			continue;
> 		}
> 		if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end >=
> @@ -325,7 +269,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 			lock_res_and_lock(req);
> 			if (IS_ERR(new2)) {
> 				ldlm_flock_destroy(req, lock->l_granted_mode,
> -						   *flags);
> +						   LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC);
> 				return LDLM_ITER_STOP;
> 			}
> 			goto reprocess;
> @@ -354,9 +298,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 					     &new2->l_remote_handle,
> 					     &new2->l_exp_hash);
> 		}
> -		if (*flags == LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC)
> -			ldlm_lock_addref_internal_nolock(new2,
> -							 lock->l_granted_mode);
> +		ldlm_lock_addref_internal_nolock(new2,
> +						 lock->l_granted_mode);
> 
> 		/* insert new2 at lock */
> 		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, new2);
> @@ -377,22 +320,13 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags)
> 		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, req);
> 	}
> 
> -	if (*flags != LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC) {
> -		/* The only one possible case for client-side calls flock
> -		 * policy function is ldlm_flock_completion_ast inside which
> -		 * carries LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC flag.
> -		 */
> -		CERROR("Illegal parameter for client-side-only module.\n");
> -		LBUG();
> -	}
> -
> 	/* In case we're reprocessing the requested lock we can't destroy
> 	 * it until after calling ldlm_add_ast_work_item() above so that laawi()
> 	 * can bump the reference count on \a req. Otherwise \a req
> 	 * could be freed before the completion AST can be sent.
> 	 */
> 	if (added)
> -		ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> +		ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC);
> 
> 	ldlm_resource_dump(D_INFO, res);
> 	return LDLM_ITER_CONTINUE;
> @@ -582,12 +516,10 @@ ldlm_flock_completion_ast(struct ldlm_lock *lock, __u64 flags, void *data)
> 		getlk->fl_start = (loff_t)lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
> 		getlk->fl_end = (loff_t)lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
> 	} else {
> -		__u64 noreproc = LDLM_FL_WAIT_NOREPROC;
> -
> 		/* We need to reprocess the lock to do merges or splits
> 		 * with existing locks owned by this process.
> 		 */
> -		ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc);
> +		ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock);
> 	}
> 	unlock_res_and_lock(lock);
> 	return rc;
> 
> 

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation

  reply	other threads:[~2017-10-27  9:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-23  0:53 [PATCH 0/9] Assorted cleanups for staging/.../lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c NeilBrown
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 6/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_flock_destroy() NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:23   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 8/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unnecessary 'ownlocks' variable NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:33   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 7/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: tidy list walking in ldlm_flock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:32   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 9/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused field 'fwd_generation' NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:39   ` [lustre-devel] " Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-27 11:10     ` NeilBrown
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 3/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unneeded 'err' arg to ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:11   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 5/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'overlaps' variable NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:20   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 4/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:19   ` Dilger, Andreas [this message]
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' " NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:08   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23  0:53 ` [PATCH 2/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'work_list' " NeilBrown
2017-10-27  9:09   ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-24 22:20 ` [PATCH 0/9] Assorted cleanups for staging/.../lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c James Simmons
2017-10-25 21:55   ` NeilBrown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=DB39E24B-FB97-4572-BC43-5D0836FAB526@intel.com \
    --to=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®