On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:21PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
> > and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
> > with that lock. I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on
> > the entire file which should be blocked by eithe rthe RDLCK or the WRLCK
> > and it doesn't check both, I plan on fixing that once this is resolved.
> >
> > But, much more importantly F_GETLK is returning F_UNLCK saying that
> > there was no conflict at all.
>
> Argh, OK. I still can't see the problem yet, then. What filesystem is
> this on?
Oh, cripes. I'm a loser. Next to figure out what's up with the
connectathon locking tests that they pass when GETLK never finds a
conflicting lock....
--b.
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 53b0cd1..7fd2d17 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -670,7 +670,6 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
{
struct file_lock *cfl;
- fl->fl_type = F_UNLCK;
lock_kernel();
for (cfl = filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_flock; cfl; cfl =
cfl->fl_next) {
if (!IS_POSIX(cfl))
@@ -682,7 +681,8 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
__locks_copy_lock(fl, cfl);
unlock_kernel();
return 1;
- }
+ } else
+ fl->fl_type = F_UNLCK;
unlock_kernel();
return 0;
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
