diff options
| author | Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org> | 2007-06-07 00:00:45 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Gerald (Jerry) Carter <jerry@samba.org> | 2007-10-10 12:23:10 -0500 |
| commit | d0b64567630ec02eb437aa713847bb23a8be8a60 (patch) | |
| tree | d5a48eb9ee00c0d18f2d7449b2fc0938559e61d6 /source/lib/tdb | |
| parent | 07b71a02aef15b75d281cabeb7140db1bc0bb283 (diff) | |
| download | samba-d0b64567630ec02eb437aa713847bb23a8be8a60.tar.gz samba-d0b64567630ec02eb437aa713847bb23a8be8a60.tar.xz samba-d0b64567630ec02eb437aa713847bb23a8be8a60.zip | |
r23370: Traverse in tdb wasn't consistently using the
travlocks.lock_rw for lock read/write types, it
was sometimes using it (tdb_next_lock) and
sometimes explicitly using F_WRLCK instead.
Change this to consistently use travlocks.lock_rw
only.
I'm pretty sure about this fix (else I woudn't
be checking this in :-) but tridge and Volker
please review.
Jeremy.
Diffstat (limited to 'source/lib/tdb')
| -rw-r--r-- | source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c | 18 |
1 files changed, 10 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c b/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c index fb2371d4039..69f3bd68d18 100644 --- a/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c +++ b/source/lib/tdb/common/traverse.c @@ -263,12 +263,15 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_firstkey(struct tdb_context *tdb) tdb->travlocks.off = tdb->travlocks.hash = 0; tdb->travlocks.lock_rw = F_RDLCK; + /* Grab first record: locks chain and returns record. */ if (tdb_next_lock(tdb, &tdb->travlocks, &rec) <= 0) return tdb_null; /* now read the key */ key.dsize = rec.key_len; key.dptr =tdb_alloc_read(tdb,tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec),key.dsize); - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(tdb->travlocks.hash), F_WRLCK) != 0) + + /* Unlock the hash chain of the record we just read. */ + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_firstkey: error occurred while tdb_unlocking!\n")); return key; } @@ -283,7 +286,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) /* Is locked key the old key? If so, traverse will be reliable. */ if (tdb->travlocks.off) { - if (tdb_lock(tdb,tdb->travlocks.hash,F_WRLCK)) + if (tdb_lock(tdb,tdb->travlocks.hash,tdb->travlocks.lock_rw)) return tdb_null; if (tdb_rec_read(tdb, tdb->travlocks.off, &rec) == -1 || !(k = tdb_alloc_read(tdb,tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec), @@ -294,7 +297,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) SAFE_FREE(k); return tdb_null; } - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, F_WRLCK) != 0) { + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) { SAFE_FREE(k); return tdb_null; } @@ -306,7 +309,7 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) if (!tdb->travlocks.off) { /* No previous element: do normal find, and lock record */ - tdb->travlocks.off = tdb_find_lock_hash(tdb, oldkey, tdb->hash_fn(&oldkey), F_WRLCK, &rec); + tdb->travlocks.off = tdb_find_lock_hash(tdb, oldkey, tdb->hash_fn(&oldkey), tdb->travlocks.lock_rw, &rec); if (!tdb->travlocks.off) return tdb_null; tdb->travlocks.hash = BUCKET(rec.full_hash); @@ -317,19 +320,18 @@ TDB_DATA tdb_nextkey(struct tdb_context *tdb, TDB_DATA oldkey) } oldhash = tdb->travlocks.hash; - /* Grab next record: locks chain and returned record, + /* Grab next record: locks chain and returns record, unlocks old record */ if (tdb_next_lock(tdb, &tdb->travlocks, &rec) > 0) { key.dsize = rec.key_len; key.dptr = tdb_alloc_read(tdb, tdb->travlocks.off+sizeof(rec), key.dsize); /* Unlock the chain of this new record */ - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, F_WRLCK) != 0) + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, tdb->travlocks.hash, tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_nextkey: WARNING tdb_unlock failed!\n")); } /* Unlock the chain of old record */ - if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(oldhash), F_WRLCK) != 0) + if (tdb_unlock(tdb, BUCKET(oldhash), tdb->travlocks.lock_rw) != 0) TDB_LOG((tdb, TDB_DEBUG_FATAL, "tdb_nextkey: WARNING tdb_unlock failed!\n")); return key; } - |