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 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock()
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:08:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DC057AF3-8C2F-45C3-80C8-F92587BAA462@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <150872002958.3340.14294625301256962751.stgit@noble>
On Oct 22, 2017, at 18:53, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>
> it is only ever set to '1', so we can just assume that and remove the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c | 15 ++-------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> index cb826e9e840e..f719dc05e1ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
> @@ -121,15 +121,9 @@ ldlm_flock_destroy(struct ldlm_lock *lock, enum ldlm_mode mode, __u64 flags)
> * It is also responsible for splitting a lock if a portion of the lock
> * is released.
> *
> - * If \a first_enq is 0 (ie, called from ldlm_reprocess_queue):
> - * - blocking ASTs have already been sent
> - *
> - * If \a first_enq is 1 (ie, called from ldlm_lock_enqueue):
> - * - blocking ASTs have not been sent yet, so list of conflicting locks
> - * would be collected and ASTs sent.
> */
> static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> - int first_enq, enum ldlm_error *err,
> + enum ldlm_error *err,
> struct list_head *work_list)
> {
> struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
> @@ -197,11 +191,6 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req, __u64 *flags,
> if (!ldlm_flocks_overlap(lock, req))
> continue;
>
> - if (!first_enq) {
> - reprocess_failed = 1;
> - continue;
> - }
> -
> if (*flags & LDLM_FL_BLOCK_NOWAIT) {
> ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
> *err = -EAGAIN;
> @@ -605,7 +594,7 @@ ldlm_flock_completion_ast(struct ldlm_lock *lock, __u64 flags, void *data)
> /* We need to reprocess the lock to do merges or splits
> * with existing locks owned by this process.
> */
> - ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, 1, &err, NULL);
> + ldlm_process_flock_lock(lock, &noreproc, &err, NULL);
> }
> unlock_res_and_lock(lock);
> return rc;
>
>
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-27 9:08 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 5/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'overlaps' variable NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:20 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-10-23 0:53 ` [PATCH 2/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'work_list' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:09 ` 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 1/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:08 ` Dilger, Andreas [this message]
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 4/9] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-10-27 9:19 ` 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
2017-10-24 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=DC057AF3-8C2F-45C3-80C8-F92587BAA462@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
Powered by JetHome