Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:35:13 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <19990823213512.A99022@ppp18344.on.bellglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <v04210101b3e74ee17776@[128.113.24.47]>; from Garance A Drosihn on Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:28:01PM -0400 References: <19990823122719.G83273@freebie.lemis.com> <7071.935386172@critter.freebsd.dk> <19990823095310.A83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230031.RAA00909@apollo.backplane.com> <19990823100654.B83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230504.WAA01860@apollo.backplane.com> <19990823152849.H83273@freebie.lemis.com> <v04210101b3e74ee17776@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:28:01PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > Anyway, I am also puzzled as to why there would be much objection > to the option of mandatory locking. My initial systems-programming If you provide mandatory locks that can be broken, then many of the objections may disappear... Providing mandatory locks that can be broken would be rather useful, I think. Mandatory locks that cannot be broken are another matter... -- This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990823213512.A99022>