Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 07:41:52 +0930 From: "Daniel O'Connor" <darius@dons.net.au> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PEFS and advisory locking on ZFS Message-ID: <7EA062FC-54F8-48BB-958A-84C92652BEA3@dons.net.au> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2iS%2BmU5DO0zjzJFriyMrqY8xQoDS0ApQ5NuU3aqUN_HGQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <03F69985-51A4-4A35-801C-CFC7B40B766D@dons.net.au> <CAOtMX2iS%2BmU5DO0zjzJFriyMrqY8xQoDS0ApQ5NuU3aqUN_HGQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 6 Apr 2022, at 06:27, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> wrote: >> ZFS itself is fine, the lock test passes if PEFS isn't mounted, and = on the same version PEFS on UFS works fine also. >>=20 >> I plan on bisecting it but if anyone has a suggestion I'm all ears. >=20 > Does it use flock or fcntl with F_GETLK/F_SETLK? Or worse, does it > mix the two? Is fusefs involved? And does it work on top of UFS? I tested with lockf(1) which uses flock(3) but the odd part is it works = on top of UFS but not ZFS.. -- Daniel O'Connor "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7EA062FC-54F8-48BB-958A-84C92652BEA3>