[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:18:21 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: Ability to test for flock presence on fd
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07:14PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> > Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could
> > do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and
> > flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ?
>
> Well, in our case we parse /proc/locks anyway to see what
> files at least to test for being locked. But what you propose
> looks even better. I'll look what can be done here.
Actually I think I prefer your version. It seems cleaner to define
LOCK_TEST as returning the same result as you'd get if you actually
tried the lock, just without applying the lock. It avoids having a
different return-value convention for this one command. It might avoid
some ambiguity in cases where the flock might be denied for reasons
other than a conflicting flock (e.g. on NFS where flocks and fcntl locks
conflict). It's closer to what GETLK does in the fcntl case.
--b.
--
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