From 763641d81202834e9d64de2019d1edec12868f4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:55:40 +0200 Subject: lockd: push lock_flocks down lockd should use lock_flocks() instead of lock_kernel() to lock against posix locks accessing the i_flock list. This is a prerequisite to turning lock_flocks into a spinlock. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields --- fs/lockd/svc.c | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/lockd/svc.c') diff --git a/fs/lockd/svc.c b/fs/lockd/svc.c index b13aabc12298..abfff9d7979d 100644 --- a/fs/lockd/svc.c +++ b/fs/lockd/svc.c @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ #include #include #include -#include #include #include #include @@ -130,15 +129,6 @@ lockd(void *vrqstp) dprintk("NFS locking service started (ver " LOCKD_VERSION ").\n"); - /* - * FIXME: it would be nice if lockd didn't spend its entire life - * running under the BKL. At the very least, it would be good to - * have someone clarify what it's intended to protect here. I've - * seen some handwavy posts about posix locking needing to be - * done under the BKL, but it's far from clear. - */ - lock_kernel(); - if (!nlm_timeout) nlm_timeout = LOCKD_DFLT_TIMEO; nlmsvc_timeout = nlm_timeout * HZ; @@ -195,7 +185,6 @@ lockd(void *vrqstp) if (nlmsvc_ops) nlmsvc_invalidate_all(); nlm_shutdown_hosts(); - unlock_kernel(); return 0; } -- cgit v1.2.3