vfs: don't treat fl_type as a bitmap

The rules for fl_type are rather convoluted. Typically it's treated as
holding specific values, except in the case of LOCK_MAND, in which case
it can be or'ed with LOCK_READ|LOCK_WRITE.

On some arches F_WRLCK == 2 and F_UNLCK == 3, so and'ing with F_WRLCK will also
catch the F_UNLCK case. It's unlikely in either case here that we'd ever see
F_UNLCK since those shouldn't end up on any lists, but it's still best to be
consistent.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>

1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 7e81bfc75164..669911e4af9d 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -1289,7 +1289,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__break_lease);
 void lease_get_mtime(struct inode *inode, struct timespec *time)
 {
         struct file_lock *flock = inode->i_flock;
-        if (flock && IS_LEASE(flock) && (flock->fl_type & F_WRLCK))
+        if (flock && IS_LEASE(flock) && (flock->fl_type == F_WRLCK))
                 *time = current_fs_time(inode->i_sb);
         else
                 *time = inode->i_mtime;
@@ -2187,8 +2187,8 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
         } else {
                 seq_printf(f, "%s ",
                                (lease_breaking(fl))
-                               ? (fl->fl_type & F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
-                               : (fl->fl_type & F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
+                               ? (fl->fl_type == F_UNLCK) ? "UNLCK" : "READ "
+                               : (fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK) ? "WRITE" : "READ ");
         }
         if (inode) {
 #ifdef WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW