lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
From
Date
> However you are also changing the behaviour of F_SETLK for the case
> where the user is trying to up/downgrade a set of existing READ/WRITE
> locks. Again you may end up with a situation where some of the existing
> locks get up/downgraded, and yet the lock request fails.

Can you please point out the exact case when this happens?

I've carefully reviewd the code, and found none.

Thanks,
Miklos
-
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: 2006-03-31 21:34    [W:0.085 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site