Mark Fasheh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
> > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
> > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to
> > acquire a clustered filesystem lock". Not even close.
>
> What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock
> is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that -
> nobody over here cares what it's called.
The whole idea of reinterpreting file operations to mean something utterly
different just seems inappropriate to me.
You get a lot of goodies when using a filesystem - the ability for
unrelated processes to look things up, resource release on exit(), etc. If
those features are valuable in the ocfs2 context then fine. But I'd have
thought that it would be saner and more extensible to add new syscalls
(perhaps taking fd's) rather than overloading the open() mode in this
manner.
-
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]
| |
 |