Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:54:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: marc.vanwoerkom@science-factory.com (Marc van Woerkom) Cc: bp@butya.kz, marc.vanwoerkom@science-factory.com, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MSDOS FS and flock? Message-ID: <200011211854.LAA28358@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200011211032.eALAWSq16643@nil.science-factory.com> from "Marc van Woerkom" at Nov 21, 2000 11:32:28 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, msdosfs doesn't implement advisory locks. Attached you'll > > find a diff against recent -current (but should work on -stable > > too) which adds necessary VOP to msdosfs. > > Thank you very much for that patch. > I will give it a try. > As it does not look esoteric, is there a reason why it is not > in -CURRENT? It's really the wrong approach going forward, since it means that the work has to be duplicated (with the possibility of error) for each and every VFS that is ever implemented. It's also very hard to implement every little detail for every VFS, since not only is there the possibility of duplication error, there are enough VFS' that keeping all of them synchronized is a big job. This type of thing really falls through the cracks all the time, unless it is implemented in common code. If you get into it in any detail, you'll see that root mounts aren't supported on many VFS types, either, and that there are similar caveats elsewhere (like the special device, named pipe, socket, and FIFO ownership and permissions issues I noted before). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011211854.LAA28358>