[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gfs-bugs
Subject:    [gfs-bugs] [Bug 221] New - flocks broken again
From:       bugzilla-daemon () sistina ! com
Date:       2001-03-07 22:24:52
[Download RAW message or body]

http://bugzilla.sistina.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221

*** shadow/221	Wed Mar  7 16:24:51 2001
--- shadow/221.tmp.307	Wed Mar  7 16:24:51 2001
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,42 ----
+ Bug#: 221
+ Product: GFS
+ Version: Public CVS
+ Platform: 
+ OS/Version: All
+ Status: NEW   
+ Resolution: 
+ Severity: normal
+ Priority: P4
+ Component: gfs
+ AssignedTo: gfs-bugs@sistina.com                            
+ ReportedBy: conrad@sistina.com               
+ URL: 
+ Summary: flocks broken again
+ 
+ Gee I write up this nice tool to verify posix and bsd style file locks.
+ And look wht the damn things did, it found a bug in code that was suposed to be
+ working.
+ 
+ grrr.
+ 
+ One node, gfs with memexp:
+   pidA: got open:fileA:/gfs/first_file
+   pidA: got flock:shl:fileA
+   pidB: got open:fileA:/gfs/first_file
+   pidB: got flock:shl:fileA
+   pidA: got flock:unl:fileA
+   pidB: got flock:unl:fileA
+   pidA: got close:fileA
+   pidB: got close:fileA
+ 
+   pidA: got open:fileA:/gfs/first_file
+   pidB: got open:fileA:/gfs/first_file
+   pidA: got flock:shn:fileA
+   pidB: got flock:shn:fileA
+   Locker `pidB' sent a result `11'(Resource temporarily unavailable) but we
+ expected 0
+ 
+ So, I can have two pids get a shared flock on a file.  However if they ask for
+ teh lock with a nonblocking version of the call (shn), then it fails.
+ 
+ oopies. I'll have to go fix that......
Read the GFS HOWTO http://www.sistina.com/gfs/Pages/howto.html
gfs-bugs mailing list
gfs-bugs@sistina.com
http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/gfs-bugs
Read the GFS Howto:  http://www.sistina.com/gfs/Pages/howto.html

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]