From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
Subject: Re: Does mandatory locking need to be set when the file is locked?
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:00:12 -0800
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20031216220012.GD1402@matchmail.com>
References: <20031215185925.GK15674@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <OF46ABFCA2.D4CF20F4-ON87256DFE.00692D4E-88256DFE.0069943C@us.ibm.com> <20031216203303.GA1402@matchmail.com> <1071611329.2098.27.camel@nidelv.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Joseph D. Wagner" <theman@josephdwagner.info>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net ([151.164.30.28]:39419 "EHLO
	mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S262848AbTLPWAY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:00:24 -0500
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1071611329.2098.27.camel@nidelv.trondhjem.org>
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 04:48:49PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> P? ty , 16/12/2003 klokka 15:33, skreiv Mike Fedyk:
> > Another problem, is that with standard network filesystems (read NFS < 4)
> > the suggestive locks aren't propagated unless you use lock files!
> 
> Huh? If by 'suggestive' locks you mean advisory locks, then the above is
> pure FUD.
> 

I stand corrected.

> The Linux NFS implementation has been stateful ever since 2.2.0, when
> Olaf added full support for POSIX byte-range locks for v2 and v3 over
> the standard NLM protocol.
> Nobody has yet used it in order to implement support for BSD locks, but
> that is at least partly because it would break with the "standard"
> behaviour that BSD locks and POSIX locks should not see each other
> (remember those "sendmail" bugs a couple of years ago?).

Oh, the joys of netatalk using flock, and samba using fcntl... :(

> All NFSv4 adds of value when it comes to locking is support for
> mandatory locking, and a faster, more robust protocol than NLM ever was.
> Otherwise the combination NFSv3 w/ NLM has been keeping most people's
> mailboxes safe for several years now...

I'm very happy to hear this.

Thanks