@@ -2212,7 +2212,7 @@ again:
*/
/*
* we need that spin_lock here - it prevents reordering between
- * update of inode->i_flock and check for it done in close().
+ * update of i_flctx->flc_posix and check for it done in close().
* rcu_read_lock() wouldn't do.
*/
spin_lock(¤t->files->file_lock);
@@ -925,12 +925,11 @@ int locks_in_grace(struct net *);
* FIXME: should we create a separate "struct lock_request" to help distinguish
* these two uses?
*
- * The i_flock list is ordered by:
+ * The varous i_flctx lists are ordered by:
*
- * 1) lock type -- FL_LEASEs first, then FL_FLOCK, and finally FL_POSIX
- * 2) lock owner
- * 3) lock range start
- * 4) lock range end
+ * 1) lock owner
+ * 2) lock range start
+ * 3) lock range end
*
* Obviously, the last two criteria only matter for POSIX locks.
*/
@@ -1992,8 +1991,9 @@ static inline int break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
@@ -2005,8 +2005,9 @@ static inline int break_deleg(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode)
{
/*
* Since this check is lockless, we must ensure that any refcounts
- * taken are done before checking inode->i_flock. Otherwise, we could
- * end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this file.
+ * taken are done before checking i_flctx->flc_lease. Otherwise, we
+ * could end up racing with tasks trying to set a new lease on this
+ * file.
*/
smp_mb();
if (inode->i_flctx && !list_empty_careful(&inode->i_flctx->flc_lease))
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@primarydata.com> --- fs/locks.c | 2 +- include/linux/fs.h | 19 ++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)