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

List:       linux-fsdevel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/4] locks: don't unnecessarily fail posix lock
From:       Miklos Szeredi <miklos () szeredi ! hu>
Date:       2006-03-31 19:46:02
Message-ID: E1FPPZK-0005qJ-00 () dorka ! pomaz ! szeredi ! hu
[Download RAW message or body]

> > In the first case no new locks are needed.  In the second, no locks
> > are modified prior to the check.
> 
> Consider something like
> 
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)
> fcntl(SETLK, 0, 100)

Huh?  What is the type of lock in each case.

But anyway your example is no good.  If the new lock completely covers
the previous one, then the old lock will simply be adjusted and no new
lock is inserted.

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]