From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 22 14:39:15 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id OAA18668 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:39:15 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA18662 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:39:13 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA01980; Tue, 22 Aug 95 15:40:35 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9508222140.AA01980@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: Using space in a DOS filesystem To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 15:40:34 MDT Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199508222011.GAA21010@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from "Bruce Evans" at Aug 23, 95 06:11:26 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > >> > 1) Look up the file > >> > 2) Assert a mandatory file lock > >> > >> Instructions on this one would be needed 8) > > >Open it O_EXCL in the device node exporting code. > > In FreeBSD, unlike in Terryx :-), O_EXCL is only implemented for regular > files. The semantics of O_EXCL are specified by POSIX (only) for > regular files. They don't give mandatory locking. Everything that > opens the file would have to use O_EXCL to give advisory locking. Why from the FAT perspective isn't a contiguous slab of blocks considered a regular file? We are asserting the lock against potential FAT users, not against root clobbering himself. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.