Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations

> However you are also changing the behaviour of F_SETLK for the case
> where the user is trying to up/downgrade a set of existing READ/WRITE
> locks. Again you may end up with a situation where some of the existing
> locks get up/downgraded, and yet the lock request fails.

Can you please point out the exact case when this happens?

I've carefully reviewd the code, and found none.

Thanks,
Miklos
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/4] locks: cleanups and fixes
    • From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
    • From: Miklos Szeredi <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
    • From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] 8250: yet another attempt at a serial console fix
• Next by Date: Re: [spi-devel-general] Re: question on spi_bitbang
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock operations
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]