On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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>
Thanks, Jeff. That was actually the exact article I was referencing but forgetting the details of. Jeremy, thanks for writing that up so many years ago (I used to eat that stuff up in college). -- Peace and Blessings, -Scott. -- 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/
