On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:18:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I thought I stated this in my other email. We're not intending
> > to extend dlmfs.
>
> Famous last words ;)
Heh, of course :-)
> I don't buy the general "fs is nice because we can script it" argument,
> really. You can just write a few simple applications which provide access
> to the syscalls (or the fs!) and then write scripts around those.
I can't see how that works easily. I'm not worried about a
tarball (eventually Red Hat and SuSE and Debian would have it). I'm
thinking about this shell:
exec 7</dlm/domainxxxx/lock1
do stuff
exec 7</dev/null
If someone kills the shell while stuff is doing, the lock is unlocked
because fd 7 is closed. However, if you have an application to do the
locking:
takelock domainxxx lock1
do sutff
droplock domainxxx lock1
When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't
called. And SEGV/QUIT/-9 (especially -9, folks love it too much) are
handled by the first example but not by the second.
Joel
--
"Same dancers in the same old shoes.
You get too careful with the steps you choose.
You don't care about winning but you don't want to lose
After the thrill is gone."
Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
Oracle
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (650) 506-8127
-
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]
| |
 |