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.
We now have only one code path that stores the fully
granted lock.
This is not change in behavior, but it will simplify further
changes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This prepares some helper functions in order to
allow callers of g_lock_lock() to pass in a callback function
that will run under the tdb chainlock when G_LOCK_WRITE was granted.
The idea is that the callers callback function would run with
g_lock_ctx->busy == true and all key based function are not be allowed
during the execution of the callback function. Only the
g_lock_lock_cb_state based helper function are allowed to be used.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This prepares some helper functions in order to
allow callers of g_lock_lock() to pass in a callback function
that will run under the tdb chainlock when G_LOCK_WRITE was granted.
The idea is that the callers callback function would only be allowed
to run these new helper functions, while all key based function are
not to be allowed.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
First we fully check if we'll get the lock
and then store the lock.
This is not change in behavior, but it will simplify further changes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This is useful when we want to wakeup the next watcher
without modifying the record.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This can be used if the decision of using dbwrap_watched_watch_skip_alerting()
needs to be reverted...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
If a watcher was already selected for a wakeup notification reset it...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This pairs with get_share_mode_lock_internal() and will allow us
to use a struct share_mode_lock stack variable in future,
which will be much cheaper.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This detaches the logic from the talloc(mem_ctx, struct share_mode_lock).
In future we will have cases where we use a stack variable instead,
which will be much cheaper.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
The effective value of share_mode_lock_key_refcount
is 'share_mode_lock_key_refcount + static_share_mode_data_refcount',
which is quite confusing.
This complexity is not needed and we can just use
share_mode_lock_key_refcount.
This will also simplify further changes.
Review with: git show -U15 -w
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This will allow us to have better debug messages and will also make
further changes easier.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We're already holding a share_mode_lock, so we can use it directly.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
These will be used in future to call them unter an existing share mode
lock...
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
There are no callers left dereferencing it.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
In some places we just rely on share_mode_lock_access_private_data()
to work, if needed the caller should already check it's result...
Note that share_mode_lock_assert_private_data() can't fail up to
now, but we want to change that in future and only load it on
demand.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock' as much as possible.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This will simplify some (mostly debug) code soon.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
We only need to access lck->data once...
This will simplify further changes.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
In future we should avoid dereference 'struct share_mode_lock'
as much as possible.
This will also allow us to load struct share_mode_data
only if required in future.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
This allows us get rid of the otherwise unused share_mode_do_locked().
It means we only have one code path that handles the g_lock handling.
This looks like a performance degradation, but all callers of
share_mode_wakeup_waiters() already took the share_mode_lock,
so we only increment the refcount. Note the additional
talloc(mem_ctx, struct share_mode_lock) will be optimized away
in the next commits.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
share_mode_do_locked() will be make static soon.
Here we just want to avoid concurrent access to brlock.tdb
in order to maintain the lock order, we're not interested in the
locking.tdb content at all, expect that there's at least one
entry.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
share_mode_do_locked() will be make static soon.
Here we just want to avoid concurrent access to brlock.tdb
in order to maintain the lock order, we're not interested in the
locking.tdb content at all, expect that there's at least one
entry and we want to wake potential watchers.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
These function will add an abstraction to protect
a function that is not allowed to call vfs functions
or allow vfs functions to be called.
Currently these are implemented similar,
but we'll optimize them in the next commits.
The idea is that share_mode_do_locked_vfs_denied()
will be able to run fast enough in order to run
under a tdb chainlock (just a pthread mutex).
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Kernel oplocks can block in the same way vfs operations can do.
BUG: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15125
Signed-off-by: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
