Messages in this thread | | | From | (david parsons) | Subject | Re: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage) | Date | 8 Jun 1998 16:30:16 -0700 |
| |
In article <linux.kernel.199806082137.RAA00400@rsts-11.mit.edu>, <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > > I am not familiar with the reasons for using major/minor-pair for > locking so I don't know if another solution is feasable. Do you have > any pointers for additional reading? :-) > >The problem is things like /dev/modem being a symlink (or perhaps even a >hard link) to /dev/ttyS0. So it would be useful to use a lockfile that >includes the major and minor device number, in addition to using a >lockfile that is based on the device name. The basic idea is that >people want to have different device names to refer to the same device, >so we need to lock based the major/minor devices.
What about just using flock() instead of writing locks to the lockdirectory of the year? About the only reason I can think of for using the lockdirectory of the year is for applications that wish to root through the process table to identify who's got the device open, and that's a good use for /proc/locks.
Major/minor locks are a solution in search of a problem; is it reasonable for the kernel to accomodate them?
____ david parsons \bi/ flock(), at least in libc4.8.0, works very nicely \/ for me.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |