Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] Patch to allow distributed flock | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:37:05 -0400 |
| |
På to , 24/06/2004 klokka 20:07, skreiv Ken Preslan:
> If the FS is managing the posix locks and/or flocks, is there really a > reason to acquire the VFS versions of the locks too? As long as there is > some bit set that tells the VFS to call down into the FS to unlock the > locks on process exit, keeping both sets of locks seems wasteful. > What am I missing?
The only reason we care in NFS is in order to be able to deal with server reboot recovery -- which requires you to have an extensive list of all locks that are held -- and, as you note above, in order to ensure that locks are all cleared upon process exit.
For flock() locks, I agree: you can probably whittle that information down to a single bit per open file. For POSIX locks, you need the byte ranges and lockowner/pid information too...
Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |