[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131217133721.GA16724@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:37:21 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] locks: add new "private" lock type that is owned
by the filp
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:31:25AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> So, I think the above semantics are pretty clear, but now that I've had
> a go at sitting down to document this stuff for the POSIX spec and
> manpages, it's clear how convoluted the text in there is becoming.
>
> That makes me wonder...would we be better off with a new set of cmd
> values here instead of new l_type values? IOW, we could add new:
>
> F_GETLKP
> F_SETLKP
> F_SETLKPW
That seems a tad cleaner to me indeed.
> ...and then just reuse the same F_RDLCK/F_WRLCK/F_UNLCK values? With
> that too, we could create a new equivalent to struct flock that has
> fixed length types instead of dealing with the off_t mess.
For the Posix interface you'd need an off_t as that's what the whole
API uses for file offsets. We could make sure to always use a off64_t
for the kernel interface though.
What is the API you propose to posix? An new posix_lockf?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists