Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:04:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Committers <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <199908230504.WAA01860@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19990823095310.A83273@freebie.lemis.com> <199908230031.RAA00909@apollo.backplane.com> <19990823100654.B83273@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Somehow you need to get a lock.
:
:> You mean have one program make a fcntl call that causes other
:> programs to return an error or block if they try to open that
:> file while the first program holds an open descriptor?
:
: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.
:
:Greg
I dunno, it sounds pretty icky to me. I would redesign whatever you
are doing that requires mandatory locks to use advisory locks instead.
It can be as simple as a wrapper around whatever program your users are
running that is causing whatever the problem is.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
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?199908230504.WAA01860>