lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: >256 ptys (previous subject line was garbage)
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.075 / U:2.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site