lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
From
Date
> > 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)

Huh? What is the type of lock in each case.

But anyway your example is no good. If the new lock completely covers
the previous one, then the old lock will simply be adjusted and no new
lock is inserted.

Miklos
-
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: 2006-03-31 21:48    [W:0.044 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site