- }
-
- if (*flags & LDLM_FL_TEST_LOCK) {
- ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
- req->l_req_mode = LCK_NL;
- *flags |= LDLM_FL_LOCK_CHANGED;
- RETURN(LDLM_ITER_STOP);
- }
-
- /* In case we had slept on this lock request take it off of the
- * deadlock detection hash list. */
- ldlm_flock_blocking_unlink(req);
-
- /* Scan the locks owned by this process that overlap this request.
- * We may have to merge or split existing locks. */
-
- if (!ownlocks)
- ownlocks = &res->lr_granted;
-
- list_for_remaining_safe(ownlocks, tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
- lock = cfs_list_entry(ownlocks, struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
-
- if (!ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, new))
- break;
-
- if (lock->l_granted_mode == mode) {
- /* If the modes are the same then we need to process
- * locks that overlap OR adjoin the new lock. The extra
- * logic condition is necessary to deal with arithmetic
- * overflow and underflow. */
- if ((new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start >
- (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end + 1))
- && (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end !=
- OBD_OBJECT_EOF))
- continue;
-
- if ((new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
- (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start - 1))
- && (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start != 0))
- break;
-
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start <
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start) {
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
- } else {
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
- }
-
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end >
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
- } else {
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
- }
-
- if (added) {
- ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, mode, *flags);
- } else {
- new = lock;
- added = 1;
- }
- continue;
- }
-
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start >
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end)
- continue;
-
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start)
- break;
-
- ++overlaps;
-
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start <=
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start) {
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end + 1;
- break;
- }
- ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, lock->l_req_mode, *flags);
- continue;
- }
- if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end >=
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
- lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
- new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start - 1;
- continue;
- }
-
- /* split the existing lock into two locks */
-
- /* if this is an F_UNLCK operation then we could avoid
- * allocating a new lock and use the req lock passed in
- * with the request but this would complicate the reply
- * processing since updates to req get reflected in the
- * reply. The client side replays the lock request so
- * it must see the original lock data in the reply. */
-
- /* XXX - if ldlm_lock_new() can sleep we should
- * release the lr_lock, allocate the new lock,
- * and restart processing this lock. */
- if (!new2) {
- unlock_res_and_lock(req);
+ }
+
+ if (*flags & LDLM_FL_TEST_LOCK) {
+ ldlm_flock_destroy(req, mode, *flags);
+ req->l_req_mode = LCK_NL;
+ *flags |= LDLM_FL_LOCK_CHANGED;
+ RETURN(LDLM_ITER_STOP);
+ }
+
+ /* In case we had slept on this lock request take it off of the
+ * deadlock detection hash list.
+ */
+ ldlm_flock_blocking_unlink(req);
+
+ /* Scan the locks owned by this process that overlap this request.
+ * We may have to merge or split existing locks.
+ */
+
+ if (!ownlocks)
+ ownlocks = &res->lr_granted;
+
+ list_for_remaining_safe(ownlocks, tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
+ lock = list_entry(ownlocks, struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
+
+ if (!ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, new))
+ break;
+
+ if (lock->l_granted_mode == mode) {
+ /* If the modes are the same then we need to process
+ * locks that overlap OR adjoin the new lock. The extra
+ * logic condition is necessary to deal with arithmetic
+ * overflow and underflow.
+ */
+ if ((new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start >
+ (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end + 1))
+ && (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end !=
+ OBD_OBJECT_EOF))
+ continue;
+
+ if ((new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
+ (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start - 1))
+ && (lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start != 0))
+ break;
+
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start <
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start) {
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
+ } else {
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start;
+ }
+
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end >
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
+ } else {
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end;
+ }
+
+ if (added) {
+ ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, mode, *flags);
+ } else {
+ new = lock;
+ added = 1;
+ }
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start >
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end)
+ continue;
+
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start)
+ break;
+
+ ++overlaps;
+
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start <=
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start) {
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end <
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.start =
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end + 1;
+ break;
+ }
+ ldlm_flock_destroy(lock, lock->l_req_mode, *flags);
+ continue;
+ }
+ if (new->l_policy_data.l_flock.end >=
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end) {
+ lock->l_policy_data.l_flock.end =
+ new->l_policy_data.l_flock.start - 1;
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /* split the existing lock into two locks */
+
+ /* if this is an F_UNLCK operation then we could avoid
+ * allocating a new lock and use the req lock passed in
+ * with the request but this would complicate the reply
+ * processing since updates to req get reflected in the
+ * reply. The client side replays the lock request so
+ * it must see the original lock data in the reply.
+ */
+
+ /* XXX - if ldlm_lock_new() can sleep we should
+ * release the lr_lock, allocate the new lock,
+ * and restart processing this lock.
+ */
+ if (new2 == NULL) {
+ unlock_res_and_lock(req);