From 1f7bc828e30fe3e23ea0968b9595ad20e2785978 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Fasheh Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 10:33:35 -0800 Subject: ocfs2: remove an overly aggressive BUG() in dlmfs Don't BUG() user_dlm_unblock_lock() on the absence of the USER_LOCK_BLOCKED flag - this turns out to be a valid case. Make some of the related BUG() statements print more useful information. Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh --- fs/ocfs2/dlm/userdlm.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/ocfs2/dlm') diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/userdlm.c b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/userdlm.c index c3764f4744e..bac4615965f 100644 --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/userdlm.c +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/userdlm.c @@ -268,13 +268,26 @@ static void user_dlm_unblock_lock(void *opaque) spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock); - BUG_ON(!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_BLOCKED)); - BUG_ON(!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_QUEUED)); + mlog_bug_on_msg(!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_QUEUED), + "Lockres %s, flags 0x%x\n", + lockres->l_name, lockres->l_flags); - /* notice that we don't clear USER_LOCK_BLOCKED here. That's - * for user_ast to do. */ + /* notice that we don't clear USER_LOCK_BLOCKED here. If it's + * set, we want user_ast clear it. */ lockres->l_flags &= ~USER_LOCK_QUEUED; + /* It's valid to get here and no longer be blocked - if we get + * several basts in a row, we might be queued by the first + * one, the unblock thread might run and clear the queued + * flag, and finally we might get another bast which re-queues + * us before our ast for the downconvert is called. */ + if (!(lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_BLOCKED)) { + mlog(0, "Lockres %s, flags 0x%x: queued but not blocking\n", + lockres->l_name, lockres->l_flags); + spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock); + goto drop_ref; + } + if (lockres->l_flags & USER_LOCK_IN_TEARDOWN) { mlog(0, "lock is in teardown so we do nothing\n"); spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock); -- cgit v1.2.3