lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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
    comment.

    Joel

    --

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

    Joel Becker
    Senior Member of Technical Staff
    Oracle
    E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
    Phone: (650) 506-8127

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-09-06 01:36    [W:0.022 / U:30.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site