summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/fs/dlm/user.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2007-05-01[DLM] overlapping cancel and unlockDavid Teigland
Full cancel and force-unlock support. In the past, cancel and force-unlock wouldn't work if there was another operation in progress on the lock. Now, both cancel and unlock-force can overlap an operation on a lock, meaning there may be 2 or 3 operations in progress on a lock in parallel. This support is important not only because cancel and force-unlock are explicit operations that an app can use, but both are used implicitly when a process exits while holding locks. Summary of changes: - add-to and remove-from waiters functions were rewritten to handle situations with more than one remote operation outstanding on a lock - validate_unlock_args detects when an overlapping cancel/unlock-force can be sent and when it needs to be delayed until a request/lookup reply is received - processing request/lookup replies detects when cancel/unlock-force occured during the op, and carries out the delayed cancel/unlock-force - manipulation of the "waiters" (remote operation) state of a lock moved under the standard rsb mutex that protects all the other lock state - the two recovery routines related to locks on the waiters list changed according to the way lkb's are now locked before accessing waiters state - waiters recovery detects when lkb's being recovered have overlapping cancel/unlock-force, and may not recover such locks - revert_lock (cancel) returns a value to distinguish cases where it did nothing vs cases where it actually did a cancel; the cancel completion ast should only be done when cancel did something - orphaned locks put on new list so they can be found later for purging - cancel must be called on a lock when making it an orphan - flag user locks (ENDOFLIFE) at the end of their useful life (to the application) so we can return an error for any further cancel/unlock-force - we weren't setting COMP/BAST ast flags if one was already set, so we'd lose either a completion or blocking ast - clear an unread bast on a lock that's become unlocked Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2007-05-01[DLM] Don't delete misc device if lockspace removal failsPatrick Caulfield
Currently if the lockspace removal fails the misc device associated with a lockspace is left deleted. After that there is no way to access the orphaned lockspace from userland. This patch recreates the misc device if th dlm_release_lockspace fails. I believe this is better than attempting to remove the lockspace first because that leaves an unattached device lying around. The potential gap in which there is no access to the lockspace between removing the misc device and recreating it is acceptable ... after all the application is trying to remove it, and only new users of the lockspace will be affected. Signed-Off-By: Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2007-03-07[DLM] fs/dlm/user.c should #include "user.h"Adrian Bunk
Every file should include the headers containing the prototypes for it's global functions. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2007-02-12[PATCH] mark struct file_operations const 6Arjan van de Ven
Many struct file_operations in the kernel can be "const". Marking them const moves these to the .rodata section, which avoids false sharing with potential dirty data. In addition it'll catch accidental writes at compile time to these shared resources. Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-02-05[DLM] fix user unlockingDavid Teigland
When a user process exits, we clear all the locks it holds. There is a problem, though, with locks that the process had begun unlocking before it exited. We couldn't find the lkb's that were in the process of being unlocked remotely, to flag that they are DEAD. To solve this, we move lkb's being unlocked onto a new list in the per-process structure that tracks what locks the process is holding. We can then go through this list to flag the necessary lkb's when clearing locks for a process when it exits. Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2006-08-31[DLM] force removal of user lockspaceDavid Teigland
Check if the FORCEFREE flag has been provided from user space. If so, set the force option to dlm_release_lockspace() so that any remaining locks will be freed. Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2006-07-21[DLM] fix whitespace damageDavid Teigland
My previous dlm patch added trailing whitespace damage, fix that. Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2006-07-20[DLM] fix leaking user locksDavid Teigland
User NOQUEUE lock requests to a remote node that failed with -EAGAIN were never being removed from a process's list of locks. Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
2006-07-13[DLM] dlm: user locksDavid Teigland
This changes the way the dlm handles user locks. The core dlm is now aware of user locks so they can be dealt with more efficiently. There is no more dlm_device module which previously managed its own duplicate copy of every user lock. Signed-off-by: Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>