[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <537A0495.60107@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:18:13 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: OFD locks and deadlock detection
Hi Jeff,
I just happened to notice :
commit 57b65325fe34ec4c917bc4e555144b4a94d9e1f7
Author: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 3 12:13:09 2014 -0500
locks: skip deadlock detection on FL_FILE_PVT locks
And then this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/81318/focus=81327
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton <at> redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 13/14] locks: skip deadlock detection on FL_FILE_PVT locks
Date: 2014-01-09 14:19:46 GMT
I think it's pretty important to document that. All implementations
of traditional process-associated (.k.a. "POSIX") locks that I've ever
come across do detect deadlocks, so it's important to note that OFD locks
do not.
I plan to add the following text to the fcntl(2) page:
[[
In the current implementation,
no deadlock detection is performed for open file description locks.
(This contrasts with process-associated record locks,
for which the kernel does perform deadlock detection.)
]]
Okay?
cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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