Yup, I think that takes care of it, Pavel =^)
rick
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:19:20PM +0200, Pavel Filipensky wrote:
| Hey Rick,
|
| you are right, I have realized it few hours ago, but just now I have
| finished the new webrev and updated the bugster.
|
| Please check it again.
|
| Thanks,
| Pavel
|
| Rick Mesta wrote:
| > Hey Pavel,
| >
| > My only concern w/removing the hold/rele pair is that you
| > cannot guarantee that the nfs4_server_t doesn't disappear
| > from underneath you, since you don't explicitly hold it. Is
| > this a concern ? (Maybe you've already thought about that)
| >
| > rick
| >
| >On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:13:04PM +0200, Pavel Filipensky wrote:
| >| Hi,
| >|
| >| can I get a code review for 6861594 NFSv4 client Deadlock: cycle in
| >| blocking chain at nfs4_move_mi
| >|
| >| Webrev:
| >|
| >| http://cr.opensolaris.org/~pavelf/6861594/
| >|
| >|
| >| Background:
| >|
| >| If there are two threads doing a failover for differnet mounts at the
| >| same time, both of them need to grab
| >| the s_lock for the new and the old nfs server. To prevent a deadlock
| >| they must grab the s_locks it in the same order.
| >| nfs4_move_mi() is not safe since it does not guarantee the same order
| >| and allows the deadlock to happen.
| >|
| >|
| >|
| >| Thanks,
| >| Pavel
| >|
| >|
| >| _______________________________________________
| >| nfs-discuss mailing list
| >| nfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
| >
| >
--
