1. 27 9月, 2007 1 次提交
  2. 27 7月, 2007 1 次提交
  3. 07 5月, 2007 8 次提交
  4. 04 2月, 2007 1 次提交
  5. 14 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  6. 09 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  7. 21 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  8. 04 10月, 2006 5 次提交
  9. 02 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  10. 04 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  11. 01 7月, 2006 1 次提交
  12. 20 4月, 2006 1 次提交
  13. 21 3月, 2006 14 次提交
  14. 07 1月, 2006 3 次提交
    • J
      NLM: Further cancel fixes · 64a318ee
      J. Bruce Fields 提交于
       If the server receives an NLM cancel call and finds no waiting lock to
       cancel, then chances are the lock has already been applied, and the client
       just hadn't yet processed the NLM granted callback before it sent the
       cancel.
      
       The Open Group text, for example, perimts a server to return either success
       (LCK_GRANTED) or failure (LCK_DENIED) in this case.  But returning an error
       seems more helpful; the client may be able to use it to recognize that a
       race has occurred and to recover from the race.
      
       So, modify the relevant functions to return an error in this case.
      Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
      Signed-off-by: NTrond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
      64a318ee
    • J
      NLM: clean up nlmsvc_delete_block · 2c5acd2e
      J. Bruce Fields 提交于
       The fl_next check here is superfluous (and possibly a layering violation).
      Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
      Signed-off-by: NTrond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
      2c5acd2e
    • J
      NLM: don't unlock on cancel requests · 5996a298
      J. Bruce Fields 提交于
       Currently when lockd gets an NLM_CANCEL request, it also does an unlock for
       the same range.  This is incorrect.
      
       The Open Group documentation says that "This procedure cancels an
       *outstanding* blocked lock request."  (Emphasis mine.)
      
       Also, consider a client that holds a lock on the first byte of a file, and
       requests a lock on the entire file.  If the client cancels that request
       (perhaps because the requesting process is signalled), the server shouldn't
       apply perform an unlock on the entire file, since that will also remove the
       previous lock that the client was already granted.
      
       Or consider a lock request that actually *downgraded* an exclusive lock to
       a shared lock.
      Signed-off-by: NJ. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
      Signed-off-by: NTrond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
      5996a298