Patch "staging: lustre: mdc: Make IT_OPEN take lookup bits lock" has been added to the 4.10-stable tree
Subsystems (2)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
staging: lustre: mdc: Make IT_OPEN take lookup bits lock
to the 4.10-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
staging-lustre-mdc-make-it_open-take-lookup-bits-lock.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.10 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.
Quoted 1 line
From
26d2bf1e71525f4c0f644820c30d1344633159e2Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Patrick Farrell <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 19:05:14 -0500
Subject: staging: lustre: mdc: Make IT_OPEN take lookup bits lock
From: Patrick Farrell <[email protected]>
commit 26d2bf1e71525f4c0f644820c30d1344633159e2 upstream.
An earlier commit accidentally changed handling of IT_OPEN, making it take the MDS_INODELOCK_UPDATE bits lock instead of MDS_INODELOCK_LOOKUP. This does not cause any known bugs.
Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-8842
Reviewed-on: https://review.whamcloud.com/23797
--- drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_locks.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_locks.c +1 -1
@@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ int mdc_enqueue(struct obd_export *exp,LASSERT (!policy); saved_flags |=LDLM_FL_HAS_INTENT ; -if (it->it_op & (IT_OPEN |IT_UNLINK |IT_GETATTR |IT_READDIR )) +if (it->it_op & (IT_UNLINK |IT_GETATTR |IT_READDIR )) policy = &update_policy;else if (it->it_op &IT_LAYOUT ) policy = &layout_policy;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are
queue-4.10/staging-lustre-mdc-make-it_open-take-lookup-bits-lock.patch
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): CY4PR11MB17513A806206DED46E1BCBE3CBED0@CY4PR11MB1751.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
[email protected]
maintainerQuoted 7 lines · Patrick Farrell
Greg et al.,
Can someone copied here say why this was pushed to stable? When I wrote the patch, my impression was the code was wrong but it didn't cause any problems.
I thought this was basically cleanup. If someone found a problem associated
with this patch, I'd be curious to hear.
I thought it was needed, based on the patch and the fixes: field. But you are right, it's not really necessary, so I'll go drop it from the queue. Thanks for noticing this and letting me know.
greg k-h