[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:0.022 / U:80.632 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site