From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: michi1@michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com (Michael Blizek)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:54:51 +0200
Subject: Avoid mandatory locks? Really? According to
	linux/Documentation/filesystems/mandatory-locking.txt
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiktrJ6oxPRhio8BscCDb3eNrkax0oLhUfOHFh7x@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiktrJ6oxPRhio8BscCDb3eNrkax0oLhUfOHFh7x@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110330055451.GA2043@michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

Hi!

On 19:14 Tue 29 Mar     , Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
...
> Naturally, wanting to get the details right, I did some browsing of
> documentation.  It seems the Stevens &
> Rago text that I'm using has a pretty good section on file locking in the
> Advanced I/O chapter, and it agreed
> with what I had expected well enough.  But I found a reference to this file
> mentioned above, and was
> shocked to find it began with a warning to avoid this feature.  It seemed it
> was like the BUGS section of
> the linux man page for the gets() function: do not use gets.  I gave up on
> this topic, but told my students
> about it.

You might find these pages interesting:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking2.html

	-Michi
-- 
programing a layer 3+4 network protocol for mesh networks
see http://michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com