fs: dlm: handle -EBUSY first in unlock validation

This patch checks for -EBUSY conditions in dlm_unlock() before
checking for -EINVAL conditions (except for CANCEL and
FORCEUNLOCK calls where a busy condition is expected.)
There are no problems with the current ordering of checks,
but this makes dlm_unlock() consistent with dlm_lock(), and
may avoid future problems if other checks are added.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

fs/dlm/lock.c

@@ -2918,23 +2918,12 @@ static int validate_lock_args(struct dlm_ls *ls, struct dlm_lkb *lkb,
 static int validate_unlock_args(struct dlm_lkb *lkb, struct dlm_args *args)
 {
 	struct dlm_ls *ls = lkb->lkb_resource->res_ls;
-	int rv = -EINVAL;
-
-	if (lkb->lkb_flags & DLM_IFL_MSTCPY) {
-		log_error(ls, "unlock on MSTCPY %x", lkb->lkb_id);
-		dlm_print_lkb(lkb);
-		goto out;
-	}
-
-	/* an lkb may still exist even though the lock is EOL'ed due to a
-	   cancel, unlock or failed noqueue request; an app can't use these
-	   locks; return same error as if the lkid had not been found at all */
+	int rv = -EBUSY;
 
-	if (lkb->lkb_flags & DLM_IFL_ENDOFLIFE) {
-		log_debug(ls, "unlock on ENDOFLIFE %x", lkb->lkb_id);
-		rv = -ENOENT;
+	/* normal unlock not allowed if there's any op in progress */
+	if (!(args->flags & (DLM_LKF_CANCEL | DLM_LKF_FORCEUNLOCK)) &&
+	    (lkb->lkb_wait_type || lkb->lkb_wait_count))
 		goto out;
-	}
 
 	/* an lkb may be waiting for an rsb lookup to complete where the
 	   lookup was initiated by another lock */
@@ -2949,7 +2938,24 @@ static int validate_unlock_args(struct dlm_lkb *lkb, struct dlm_args *args)
 			unhold_lkb(lkb); /* undoes create_lkb() */
 		}
 		/* caller changes -EBUSY to 0 for CANCEL and FORCEUNLOCK */
-		rv = -EBUSY;
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	rv = -EINVAL;
+	if (lkb->lkb_flags & DLM_IFL_MSTCPY) {
+		log_error(ls, "unlock on MSTCPY %x", lkb->lkb_id);
+		dlm_print_lkb(lkb);
+		goto out;
+	}
+
+	/* an lkb may still exist even though the lock is EOL'ed due to a
+	 * cancel, unlock or failed noqueue request; an app can't use these
+	 * locks; return same error as if the lkid had not been found at all
+	 */
+
+	if (lkb->lkb_flags & DLM_IFL_ENDOFLIFE) {
+		log_debug(ls, "unlock on ENDOFLIFE %x", lkb->lkb_id);
+		rv = -ENOENT;
 		goto out;
 	}
 
@@ -3022,14 +3028,8 @@ static int validate_unlock_args(struct dlm_lkb *lkb, struct dlm_args *args)
 			goto out;
 		}
 		/* add_to_waiters() will set OVERLAP_UNLOCK */
-		goto out_ok;
 	}
 
-	/* normal unlock not allowed if there's any op in progress */
-	rv = -EBUSY;
-	if (lkb->lkb_wait_type || lkb->lkb_wait_count)
-		goto out;
-
  out_ok:
 	/* an overlapping op shouldn't blow away exflags from other op */
 	lkb->lkb_exflags |= args->flags;