On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:33:26AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > IOW: the process that is waiting in locks_mandatory_area() will be
> > released as soon as the advisory lock is dropped. If that theory is
> > broken in practice, then that is the bug that we need to fix. We neither
> > want to add a load of locking crap to notify_change(), nor should we
> > need to.
>
> We have this for inotify already. Adding wakeup for mandatory lock
> is not that bad.
>
> Anyway - I noticed, that the system state can become not consistent
> and proposed the way to fix it. If this inconsistency is not a big
> deal, and nobody cares, than I'm fine with forgetting this patch,
> since I have no other arguments to protect it, but "this is just not
> very nice without this patch".
Maybe this should be documented, e.g. in fcntl(2). I'm not sure exactly
what we'd say--we probably don't want to commit to the current behavior.
Maybe something like "behavior is undefined when setting or clearing
mandatory locking on a file while it is locked".
--b.
-
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]
