From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 27 03:52:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D665816A41F; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:52:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from shurd@sasktel.net) Received: from misav07.sasknet.sk.ca (misav07.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.20.171]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C7143D5A; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:52:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from shurd@sasktel.net) Received: from bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.72.23]) by misav07 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:58 -0600 Received: from [192.168.0.193] ([142.165.59.202]) by bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTPA id <0IP000FEI2S8OQ10@bgmpomr2.sasknet.sk.ca>; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:58 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:52:56 -0600 From: Stephen Hurd In-reply-to: <200510252338.j9PNcpe8081215@freefall.freebsd.org> To: Mark Linimon Message-id: <43604F18.8050709@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200510252338.j9PNcpe8081215@freefall.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20051001 Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/50827: [kernel] [patch] new feature: add sane record locking X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:53:00 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: >Mark as 'suspended' since this does not seem as though it is being >actively worked on. > > Mostly because nobody is interested in picking it up... I use this patch regularly and haven't have it break on me. Posting on -hackers got me referred to -standards, -standards wasn't interested because it's not standard (it's an extension). So basically, nobody uses it, nobody is interested it, and I get the feeling it'll never be committed. I've already gotten over my bitterness on the point, so if you want to mark it closed or whatever, that's fine... I don't plan on pursuing it any further as feature advocacy isn't a hobby of mine. Referring it to whomever is going to be handling (or is handling?) the upcoming file locking overhaul would be nice. flock() semantics with record locking is something that IMHO *nix desperately needs.