Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:25:41PM -0500, Stuart_Hayes@Dell.com wrote:
>> Michael --
> 
> Matthew, actually ...
> 

Sorry about that!  How embarrassing.

quoted text
> 
> flocks aren't supposed to be on the blocked list in the first place.
> I'm not sure how this hasn't been noticed before.  The correct patch
> would be something like (compile-tested only): 
> 
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/locks.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /var/cvs/linux-2.6/fs/locks.c,v retrieving revision 1.12
> diff -u -p -r1.12 locks.c --- linux-2.6/fs/locks.c	13 Aug 2004
> 14:30:02 -0000	1.12 +++ linux-2.6/fs/locks.c	14 Sep 2004
00:54:13
quoted text
> -0000 @@ -459,7 +459,8 @@ static void locks_insert_block(struct fi
>  	}
>  	list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_block);
>  	waiter->fl_next = blocker;
> -	list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list);
> +	if (IS_POSIX(blocker))
> +		list_add(&waiter->fl_link, &blocked_list);
>  }
> 
>  /* Wake up processes blocked waiting for blocker.

That makes sense.  I'll give this a try to verify that it fixes the 
problem we're seeing, and will let you know.  Thanks for the help!


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html