> On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:55:42AM -0400, William A.(Andy) Adamson wrote:
> > i believe the current implementation is correct. opening a file for write
> > means that you can not have a read lease, caller included.
>
> Why not? Certainly, others will not be able to take out a read lease,
> so there's very little point to only having a read lease, but I don't
> see why we should deny it.
>
by definition: a read lease means there are no writers. so, the question is
not 'why not', the question is why? why hand out a read lease to an open for
write?
-->Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
