On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 20:18:58 -0400
Scott Lovenberg <scott.lovenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 19:49, Jeremy Allison <j...@samba.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:36:43 -0600 Andreas Dilger <adil...@dilger.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At this point, my main questions are:
> >>>
> >>> 1) does this look useful, particularly for fileserver implementors?
> >
> > Yes from the Samba perspective. We'll have to keep the old
> > code around for compatibility with non-Linux OS'es, but this
> > will allow Linux Samba to short-circuit a bunch of logic
> > we have to get around the insane POSIX locking semantics
> > on close.
> >
> > Jeremy.
>
> From the peanut gallery, IIRC from college a few years back, wasn't the POSIX
> file locking stuff passed by all parties because they intended to do their
> own thing regardless of the standard? The reason that all locks are blown on
> a release is mostly because there were already implementations and no one
> wanted to push the issue, or am I misunderstanding/forgetting the history of
> file locks in POSIX?
This blog post of Jeremy's explains some of the history:
http://www.samba.org/samba/news/articles/low_point/tale_two_stds_os2.html
See the section entitled "First Implementation Past the Post".
--
Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
