The code looks fine, except that it appears to be missing check for STATE_NFSV4_BLOCKING. Frank? Daniel On 06/19/2018 12:10 PM, ntvietvn@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
While reading the state_lock() fct i see this comment
/* We have already returned if: * + we have found an identical blocking lock * + we have found an entirely overlapping lock with the same lock owner * + this was not a supported blocking lock and we found a conflict * * So at this point, we are either going to do one of the following (all * descriptions below assume no problems occur): * * (1) FSAL supports async blocking locks, we know there is a conflict, ( and this is a supported blocking lock request * * Make FSAL_OP_LOCKB call anyway, we will rely on FSAL to grant * blocking locks. We will return the conflict we know about rather * than what the FSAL returns. Insert blocking lock into queue.
It seems that it is contradictory to the code above the comment which is in case of conflict lock, the fct returns immediately and does not make any call to FSAL, even if it supports async blocking lock. Can you clarify this point?
Thank you _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@lists.nfs-ganesha.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.nfs-ganesha.org