From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 22 19: 8:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96B914FDF; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA19218; Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:07:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:07:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <199908230207.WAA19218@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Greg Lehey Cc: Matthew Dillon , FreeBSD Hackers , FreeBSD Committers Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? In-Reply-To: <19990823100654.B83273@freebie.lemis.com> References: <19990823095310.A83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230031.RAA00909@apollo.backplane.com> <19990823100654.B83273@freebie.lemis.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG < said: > Correct. I suppose it's worth discussing what the default should be. > Should they get EAGAIN or block? Obviously you'd want a way of > specifying which, but there would have to be a default for > non-lock-aware programs. I think I'd go for blocking; it's less error > prone. I'd be strongly opposed to any sort of mandatory locking. The whole notion is unspeakably evil, although this is mitigated somewhat if it does not apply to processes with appropriate privilege. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message