Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:50:48 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <37C2B148.60FB81FA@newsguy.com> References: <19990823231130.A16133@netmonger.net> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908232313540.49952-100000@picnic.mat.net> <19990823232726.B16133@netmonger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christopher Masto wrote: > > Exactly. You said that mandatory locking means that user A's correct > use of locking means that user B doesn't have to be careful. That's > not the case, since A can step in between B's read and write. A's > mandatory lock doesn't help. > > I don't see the use for it. :-) The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid drones it took to make sensible people think it is actually useful. :-) -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org - Come on. - Where are we going? - To get what you came for. - What's that? - Me. 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?37C2B148.60FB81FA>