> Von: Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > to den 11.08.2005 Klokka 10:14 (+0200) skreiv Michael Kerrisk: > > > No. The behavior in Linux recently, and arbitrarily (IMO) changed: > > The change was NOT arbitrary.
Okay -- I'm puzzled. Two of the people that I understand to have had a strong interest in file leases seemed to think the change shouldn't have occurred: Stephen Rothwell: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111512619520116&w=2 Thanks for the testing. My expectation is that it shouldn't matter how the current process opened the file for either type of lease. However, you are right (IMHO) that the current process should *not* be counted as a writer in the case of trying to obtain a F_RDLCK lease. And Stephen suggested a one line patch to fix the problem Matthew Wilcox also wrote: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111512898520775&w=2 On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:55:42AM -0400, William A.(Andy) Adamson wrote: > i believe the current implementation is correct. opening a > file for write means that you can not have a read lease, > caller included. Why not? Certainly, others will not be able to take out a read lease, so there's very little point to only having a read lease, but I don't see why we should deny it. (By the way, I wrote the fcntl.2 manpage text for file leases -- because there was no existing documentation, or specification of the desired behavior; the text was based on my experiments, and some email discussions with Stephen Rothwell.) And I pointed out that the existing behaviour (which is still current in 2.6.13-rc4) is inconsistent: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=111511455406623&w=2 Some further testing showed the following (both open() and fcntl(F_SETLEASE) from same process): open() | lease requested flag | F_RDLCK | F_WRLCK ---------+----------+---------- O_RDONLY | okay | okay O_WRONLY | EAGAIN | okay O_RDWR | EAGAIN | okay In other words, a process can open a file read-write, and can't place a read lease, but can place a write lease! That does not seem to make any sense to me. > It was deliberate and for the reasons > stated. Can you elaborate -- which reasons are you referring to? > The whole point of leases is to support CIFS oplocks for Samba and NFSv4 > delegations in the kernel. Yep, I understand that much. > Both have the same specific expected > behaviour. > The original deviates from that expected behaviour by allowing you to > get a shared lease when in a condition that does not allow actual > sharing. And I should add -- I know little about SAMBA or CIFS. But from what I've seen (the quoted messages above), the change seems to have been accidental, and inconsistent. Cheers, Michael -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
