Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:16:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: mcgovern@spoon.beta.com Cc: n@nectar.com, mcgovern@spoon.beta.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: O_SHLOCK and O_EXLOCK - change to layering required? Message-ID: <199808062316.SAA01215@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199808061159.HAA01248@spoon.beta.com> (mcgovern@spoon.beta.com) References: <199808061159.HAA01248@spoon.beta.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yeah, but 80% of my problem is the fact they cause the open() call > on a device to fail with varying error codes, depending on the type > of device. On my own device, it appears that the error condition > occurs even before the driver open() call gets called. Oh, I see. I thought that it would return EOPNOTSUPP for all cases. > I think locking would be far more useful if locking would be passed > down through the layers until either a layer that COULD handle it > became involved, or the DRIVER said "Nope, not supported here", or > even silently ignored the lock request. Ugh. Don't silently ignore lock requests. Then you get corruption and don't know why. Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped 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?199808062316.SAA01215>