lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/6] locks: add new "private" lock type that is owned by the filp
On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:37:21 -0800
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:31:25AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > So, I think the above semantics are pretty clear, but now that I've had
> > a go at sitting down to document this stuff for the POSIX spec and
> > manpages, it's clear how convoluted the text in there is becoming.
> >
> > That makes me wonder...would we be better off with a new set of cmd
> > values here instead of new l_type values? IOW, we could add new:
> >
> > F_GETLKP
> > F_SETLKP
> > F_SETLKPW
>
> That seems a tad cleaner to me indeed.
>
> > ...and then just reuse the same F_RDLCK/F_WRLCK/F_UNLCK values? With
> > that too, we could create a new equivalent to struct flock that has
> > fixed length types instead of dealing with the off_t mess.
>
> For the Posix interface you'd need an off_t as that's what the whole
> API uses for file offsets. We could make sure to always use a off64_t
> for the kernel interface though.
>

Ok.

> What is the API you propose to posix? An new posix_lockf?
>

I haven't proposed anything concrete to POSIX just yet. I'm trying to
get the Linux patches done and then I'll do that. I don't think we want
a new syscall when fcntl() will work.

If we use new cmd values however, then we don't necessarily need to use
struct flock/flock64. I think the question is -- should we stick with
struct flock/flock64, or would we be better served with something new
for this?

Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-17 15:41    [W:0.064 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site