[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/5] locks: implement "filp-private" (aka UNPOSIX) locks
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:12:03AM -0700, Frank Filz wrote:
> > This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history:
> >
> >
> >
> > .html
> >
> > See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post".
> Interesting that Jeremy actually suggested the implementation should have
> had an arbitrary lock owner as part of the flock structure:
> "This is an example of a POSIX interface not being future-proofed against
> modern techniques such as threading. A simple amendment to the original
> primitive allowing a user-defined "locking context" (like a process id) to
> be entered in the struct flock structure used to define the lock would have
> fixed this problem, along with extra flags allowing the number of locks per
> context to be recorded if needed."
> But I'm happy with the lock context per kernel struct file as a solution,
> especially since that will allow locks to be sensibly passed to a forked
> process.
> Another next step would be an asynchronous blocking lock...

Yes, please :-)


SerNet GmbH, Bahnhofsallee 1b, 37081 Göttingen
phone: +49-551-370000-0, fax: +49-551-370000-9
AG Göttingen, HRB 2816, GF: Dr. Johannes Loxen,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-14 09:41    [W:0.087 / U:1.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site