[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1Wd2Os-00061e-GU@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:00:06 -0400
From: ams@....org (Alfred M. Szmidt)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
CC: libc-alpha@...rceware.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, dalias@...c.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, samba-technical@...ts.samba.org,
nfs-ganesha-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, carlos@...hat.com,
metze@...ba.org, hch@...radead.org, bharrosh@...asas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][glibc PATCH] fcntl-linux.h: add new definitions and
manual updates for open file description locks
> Likewise. You infact write that it does get the lock information
> later in the document wrt. F_OFD_GETLK.
Sorry, I disagree here...GETLK is really a misnomer, IMO. TESTLK
would have been a better name.
GETLK are used is to "get the first lock".
It's a way to test whether a particular lock can be applied, and to
return information about a conflicting lock if it can't. If, for
instance there is no conflicting lock, then you don't "get" any
lock information back (l_type just gets reset to F_UNLCK).
While I kinda see your point, it isn't what GETLK does; it really does
get you information about the first lock -- you're not testing
anything. It is also the terminology used in the POSIX standard.
--
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