[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Lambert) writes:
> I think this has been the basis of your objection so far. If so,
> it's a fundamental misunderstanding of "mandatory". In this context
What I was objecting to were some of the arguments made by Greg Lehey
and Wes Peters, both of whom explicitly stated that opening does not
block.
It had nothing to do with mandatory locking beyond that (quite
possibly flawed) interpretation.
> By your definiton of explicit, no. However, explicit locking is
> voluntary, just as advisory locking is voluntary, in terms of
> whether programs participate (or not).
> This pretty much means that explicit locking degrades to advisory
> locking, in the presence of (un)intentionally non-participatory
> programs.
That's basically what my objection was.
The "deadlock prone" objection made by others applies more strongly to
implicit locking, and is also valid. It can take quite a bit of care
to ensure that there is always a maintenance path to the system that
allows a sufficient environment to be used without blocking on locked
files to allow root to get in and kill any processes causing problems.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
