Commit 1cb36012 authored by Jeff Layton's avatar Jeff Layton Committed by Al Viro

locks: comment cleanups and clarifications

Signed-off-by: default avatarJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
parent d4f22d19
...@@ -518,9 +518,10 @@ static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker, ...@@ -518,9 +518,10 @@ static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list); list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list);
} }
/* Wake up processes blocked waiting for blocker. /*
* If told to wait then schedule the processes until the block list * Wake up processes blocked waiting for blocker.
* is empty, otherwise empty the block list ourselves. *
* Must be called with the file_lock_lock held!
*/ */
static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker) static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
{ {
...@@ -806,6 +807,11 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str ...@@ -806,6 +807,11 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
} }
lock_flocks(); lock_flocks();
/*
* New lock request. Walk all POSIX locks and look for conflicts. If
* there are any, either return error or put the request on the
* blocker's list of waiters and the global blocked_list.
*/
if (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK) { if (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK) {
for_each_lock(inode, before) { for_each_lock(inode, before) {
fl = *before; fl = *before;
...@@ -844,7 +850,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str ...@@ -844,7 +850,7 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
before = &fl->fl_next; before = &fl->fl_next;
} }
/* Process locks with this owner. */ /* Process locks with this owner. */
while ((fl = *before) && posix_same_owner(request, fl)) { while ((fl = *before) && posix_same_owner(request, fl)) {
/* Detect adjacent or overlapping regions (if same lock type) /* Detect adjacent or overlapping regions (if same lock type)
*/ */
...@@ -930,10 +936,9 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str ...@@ -930,10 +936,9 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
} }
/* /*
* The above code only modifies existing locks in case of * The above code only modifies existing locks in case of merging or
* merging or replacing. If new lock(s) need to be inserted * replacing. If new lock(s) need to be inserted all modifications are
* all modifications are done bellow this, so it's safe yet to * done below this, so it's safe yet to bail out.
* bail out.
*/ */
error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */ error = -ENOLCK; /* "no luck" */
if (right && left == right && !new_fl2) if (right && left == right && !new_fl2)
......
...@@ -926,6 +926,24 @@ int locks_in_grace(struct net *); ...@@ -926,6 +926,24 @@ int locks_in_grace(struct net *);
/* that will die - we need it for nfs_lock_info */ /* that will die - we need it for nfs_lock_info */
#include <linux/nfs_fs_i.h> #include <linux/nfs_fs_i.h>
/*
* struct file_lock represents a generic "file lock". It's used to represent
* POSIX byte range locks, BSD (flock) locks, and leases. It's important to
* note that the same struct is used to represent both a request for a lock and
* the lock itself, but the same object is never used for both.
*
* FIXME: should we create a separate "struct lock_request" to help distinguish
* these two uses?
*
* The i_flock list is ordered by:
*
* 1) lock type -- FL_LEASEs first, then FL_FLOCK, and finally FL_POSIX
* 2) lock owner
* 3) lock range start
* 4) lock range end
*
* Obviously, the last two criteria only matter for POSIX locks.
*/
struct file_lock { struct file_lock {
struct file_lock *fl_next; /* singly linked list for this inode */ struct file_lock *fl_next; /* singly linked list for this inode */
struct list_head fl_link; /* doubly linked list of all locks */ struct list_head fl_link; /* doubly linked list of all locks */
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment