Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Date | Fri, 31 Mar 2006 14:40:22 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 21:25 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > NACK. > > > > This changes the behaviour of F_UNLCK. Currently, if the allocation > > fails, the inode locking state remains unchanged. With your change, an > > unlock request may end up unlocking part of the inode, but not the rest. > > No, look more closer. There are two cases: > > - some locks are partially or completely removed > > - the unlock splits an existing lock in two. > > In the first case no new locks are needed. In the second, no locks > are modified prior to the check.
Consider something like
fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100) fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100) fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)
- 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/
| |