On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:21PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
> > and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
> > with that lock. I did
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
> and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
> with that lock. I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on
> the entire file
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 16:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > > A recent regression (introduced after
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 15:38 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> > > fcntl11. It appears that
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> > > fcntl11. It appears that
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> > fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
> > F_RDLCK and allows
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
> F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
Ouch.
> This can be demonstrated by
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
> F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
>
> This can be demonstrated by either running
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
This can be demonstrated by either running fcntl11 from the LTP suite or
I have hacked up a much shorter
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
This can be demonstrated by either running fcntl11 from the LTP suite or
I have hacked up a much shorter
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 14:56 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
This can be demonstrated by either running
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.
Ouch.
This can be demonstrated by either
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
F_RDLCK and allows taking
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is not
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 15:38 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
fcntl11. It appears that F_GETLK is
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 16:23 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
with that lock. I did notice that the LTP test is taking a new lock on
the entire file
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:21PM -0400, bfields wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:01:05PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
You are partly right on the test however note that it is using a start
and len that are specific to the RDLCK so that should _only_ conflict
with that lock. I did notice
18 matches
Mail list logo
