IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
NFSv4.1 supports an optional lock notification feature which notifies
the client when a lock comes available. (Normally NFSv4 clients just
poll for locks if necessary.) To make that work, we need to request a
blocking lock from the filesystem.
We turned that off for NFS in commit f657f8eef3 ("nfs: don't atempt
blocking locks on nfs reexports") [sic] because it actually blocks the
nfsd thread while waiting for the lock.
Thanks to Vasily Averin for pointing out that NFS isn't the only
filesystem with that problem.
Any filesystem that leaves ->lock NULL will use posix_lock_file(), which
does the right thing. Simplest is just to assume that any filesystem
that defines its own ->lock is not safe to request a blocking lock from.
So, this patch mostly reverts commit f657f8eef3 ("nfs: don't atempt
blocking locks on nfs reexports") [sic] and commit b840be2f00 ("lockd:
don't attempt blocking locks on nfs reexports"), and instead uses a
check of ->lock (Vasily's suggestion) to decide whether to support
blocking lock notifications on a given filesystem. Also add a little
documentation.
Perhaps someday we could add back an export flag later to allow
filesystems with "good" ->lock methods to support blocking lock
notifications.
Reported-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
[ cel: Description rewritten to address checkpatch nits ]
[ cel: Fixed warning when SUNRPC debugging is disabled ]
[ cel: Fixed NULL check ]
Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com>
40595cdc93