lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: O_SYNC option doesn't work (2.4.18-3)
Date

>Furthermore, even with 'noac' they *all* have problems with races in
>the sort of scenario you describe because there is no atomic
>GETATTR+READ operation.
>
>Bottom line: If you want the sort of data cache consistency you are
>describing, you *have* to use file locking.
File locking, meaning lockd? There are so many problems with file locking in
heterogeneous environments that we were moving towards dropping its usage.
Instead, we planned to use some home grown TCP based lock server mechanism.

I understand that locking file flushes NFS cache, isn't it? Why can't it be
flushed by O_SYNC and "sync" options presence? This would make the life much
easier for programmers...

This means that we will never be able to drop lockd locking and at the same
time achieve file consistency via NFS?

Best,
Giga
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.039 / U:3.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site