[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FMODE_EXEC or alike?
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 18:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 08:59:56AM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Hmm.... We might possibly want to use that for NFSv4 at some point in
> > order to deny write access to the file to other clients while it is in
> > use.
> So on the NFS client, an open with FMODE_EXEC could be translated into
> an NFSv4 open with a deny_write bit (since NFSv4 opens also do windows
> share locks).
> An NFSv4 server might also be able to translate deny mode writes into
> FMODE_EXEC in the case where it was exporting a cluster filesystem. It
> wouldn't completely solve the problem of implementing cluster-coherent
> share locks (which also let you deny reads, who knows why), but it seems
> like it would address the case most likely to matter.

Hmm... I don't think you want to overload write deny bits onto
FMODE_EXEC. FMODE_EXEC is basically, a read-only mode, so it
would mean that you could no longer do something like


which I would assume is one of the more frequent Windoze open modes.


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: 2006-02-22 00:35    [W:0.045 / U:2.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site