> Von: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 10:14 (+0200) skreiv Michael Kerrisk:
>
> > No. The behavior in Linux recently, and arbitrarily (IMO) changed:
>
> The change was NOT arbitrary.
Okay -- I'm puzzled. Two of the people that I understand to have
had a strong interest in file leases seemed to think the change
shouldn't have occurred:
Stephen Rothwell:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111512619520116&w=2
Thanks for the testing. My expectation is that it shouldn't
matter how the current process opened the file for either
type of lease. However, you are right (IMHO) that the current
process should *not* be counted as a writer in the case of
trying to obtain a F_RDLCK lease.
And Stephen suggested a one line patch to fix the problem
Matthew Wilcox also wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111512898520775&w=2
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 the way, I wrote the fcntl.2 manpage text for file
leases -- because there was no existing documentation, or
specification of the desired behavior; the text was based
on my experiments, and some email discussions with Stephen
Rothwell.)
And I pointed out that the existing behaviour (which is
still current in 2.6.13-rc4) is inconsistent:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111511455406623&w=2
Some further testing showed the following (both open()
and fcntl(F_SETLEASE) from same process):
open() | lease requested
flag | F_RDLCK | F_WRLCK
---------+----------+----------
O_RDONLY | okay | okay
O_WRONLY | EAGAIN | okay
O_RDWR | EAGAIN | okay
In other words, a process can open a file read-write, and
can't place a read lease, but can place a write lease!
That does not seem to make any sense to me.
> It was deliberate and for the reasons
> stated.
Can you elaborate -- which reasons are you referring to?
> The whole point of leases is to support CIFS oplocks for Samba and NFSv4
> delegations in the kernel.
Yep, I understand that much.
> Both have the same specific expected
> behaviour.
> The original deviates from that expected behaviour by allowing you to
> get a shared lease when in a condition that does not allow actual
> sharing.
And I should add -- I know little about SAMBA or CIFS. But from
what I've seen (the quoted messages above), the change seems to
have been accidental, and inconsistent.
Cheers,
Michael
--
5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |