Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:06:45 -0600 From: Stephen Hurd <shurd@sasktel.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Locking: kern/50827 Message-ID: <20040704160645.39a0c0d8.shurd@sasktel.net> In-Reply-To: <20040704181347.GE997@green.homeunix.org> References: <20040624174919.46160f9e.shurd@sasktel.net> <20040628192935.GF5635@green.homeunix.org> <20040630192041.1d9c5348.shurd@sasktel.net> <20040704181347.GE997@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Right, if you just make it cross-platform in the first place using > higher- level primitives you don't have to worry what the specific > kernel and operating system and file system you are using provides. > It's my opinion tha there won't be other people adopting this API for > file locking since it is by definition not meant to work like the > standardized APIs. > > I don't think that there's no value in having more useful locking > primitives, but they probably don't benefit much from being implemented > in the kernel unless they conform to a portable API. I certainly always > have my own various kernel modifications that I find useful, but aren't > very standard :) This sounds a lot like "Well, there's no point in doing something better since nobody else is doing it.". strlcpy() and friends are an example of non-standard stuff that just Makes Sense(tm).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040704160645.39a0c0d8.shurd>