From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Fedyk Subject: Re: Does mandatory locking need to be set when the file is locked? Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:33:03 -0800 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20031216203303.GA1402@matchmail.com> References: <20031215185925.GK15674@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, "Joseph D. Wagner" , Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from mtaw4.prodigy.net ([64.164.98.52]:12253 "EHLO mtaw4.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261775AbTLPUdV (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:33:21 -0500 To: Bryan Henderson Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 11:13:36AM -0800, Bryan Henderson wrote: > I don't mean to be argumentative, but discussions like this lead me to > suspect that the reason no one is using mandatory locks is _because_ they > don't work. So while it's true that fixing them won't fix a bunch of I tend to agree. > So anyone else considering finding a viable way to make mandatory range > locks work (or even just get closer to working than they are now) should > not be discouraged. Another problem, is that with standard network filesystems (read NFS < 4) the suggestive locks aren't propagated unless you use lock files! What linux needs is to stop using stateless network filesystems. While they have their upsides, they do have their downsides.