From: ams@gnu.org (Alfred M. Szmidt)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, dalias@libc.org,
mtk.manpages@gmail.com, samba-technical@lists.samba.org,
nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, carlos@redhat.com,
metze@samba.org, hch@infradead.org, bharrosh@panasas.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][glibc PATCH] fcntl-linux.h: add new definitions and manual updates for open file description locks
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:00:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1Wd2Os-00061e-GU@fencepost.gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140423112843.77889d16@tlielax.poochiereds.net> (message from Jeff Layton on Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:28:43 -0400)
> Likewise. You infact write that it does get the lock information
> later in the document wrt. F_OFD_GETLK.
Sorry, I disagree here...GETLK is really a misnomer, IMO. TESTLK
would have been a better name.
GETLK are used is to "get the first lock".
It's a way to test whether a particular lock can be applied, and to
return information about a conflicting lock if it can't. If, for
instance there is no conflicting lock, then you don't "get" any
lock information back (l_type just gets reset to F_UNLCK).
While I kinda see your point, it isn't what GETLK does; it really does
get you information about the first lock -- you're not testing
anything. It is also the terminology used in the POSIX standard.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-23 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-23 11:39 [RFC][glibc PATCH] fcntl-linux.h: add new definitions and manual updates for open file description locks Jeff Layton
2014-04-23 12:37 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-23 15:09 ` Alfred M. Szmidt
2014-04-23 15:28 ` Jeff Layton
2014-04-23 19:00 ` Alfred M. Szmidt [this message]
2014-04-23 19:13 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-23 19:23 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1Wd2Os-00061e-GU@fencepost.gnu.org \
--to=ams@gnu.org \
--cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
--cc=carlos@redhat.com \
--cc=dalias@libc.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=metze@samba.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=samba-technical@lists.samba.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.