[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:37:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I am curious why a lock manager uses open to implement its locking
> semantics rather than using the locking API (POSIX locks etc) however.

Because it is simple (how do you fcntl(2) from a shell fd?), has no
ranges (what do you do with ranges passed in to fcntl(2) and you don't
support them?), and has a well-known fork(2)/exec(2) pattern. fcntl(2)
has a known but less intuitive fork(2) pattern.
The real reason, though, is that we never considered fcntl(2).
We could never think of a case when a process wanted a lock fd open but
not locked. At least, that's my recollection. Mark might have more to



"In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michaelangelo."

Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
Phone: (650) 506-8127

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-06 01:36    [W:0.160 / U:2.904 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site