Date: 27 Aug 1999 12:10:10 +0300 From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen <will@iki.fi> To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Cc: wes@softweyr.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <86r9kpwpvx.fsf@not.demophon.com> In-Reply-To: tlambert@primenet.com's message of "27 Aug 1999 01:04:42 %2B0300" References: <19990826065947.19862.qmail@ns.oeno.com> <199908262202.PAA09492@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) writes: > I think this has been the basis of your objection so far. If so, > it's a fundamental misunderstanding of "mandatory". In this context What I was objecting to were some of the arguments made by Greg Lehey and Wes Peters, both of whom explicitly stated that opening does not block. It had nothing to do with mandatory locking beyond that (quite possibly flawed) interpretation. > By your definiton of explicit, no. However, explicit locking is > voluntary, just as advisory locking is voluntary, in terms of > whether programs participate (or not). > This pretty much means that explicit locking degrades to advisory > locking, in the presence of (un)intentionally non-participatory > programs. That's basically what my objection was. The "deadlock prone" objection made by others applies more strongly to implicit locking, and is also valid. It can take quite a bit of care to ensure that there is always a maintenance path to the system that allows a sufficient environment to be used without blocking on locked files to allow root to get in and kill any processes causing problems. 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?86r9kpwpvx.fsf>