From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mulyadi.santosa@gmail.com (Mulyadi Santosa)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:11:04 +0700
Subject: Avoid mandatory locks? Really? According to
	linux/Documentation/filesystems/mandatory-locking.txt
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik4PXTe_vaXYoWqX4pFHJJDrRuPfr+M1ONr7xuE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTiktrJ6oxPRhio8BscCDb3eNrkax0oLhUfOHFh7x@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110330055451.GA2043@michaelblizek.twilightparadox.com>
	<AANLkTikTRrTt4mPC_JDrhc6YRJSSwkzmBSoQiG3yaxpm@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTik4PXTe_vaXYoWqX4pFHJJDrRuPfr+M1ONr7xuE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikDkJYd3V6T1xsfsGynVjoinWx3pUqPb2oska0t@mail.gmail.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 22:08, Kevin O'Gorman <kogorman@gmail.com> wrote:
> That may be an overstatement. ?Most of the complaints are about DoS attacks
> and/or
> distributed systems. ?That's pretty awful, and means the locking is not
> scaleable, but

alright...maybe that's why, e.g in distributed fs such as GFS, we need
(gfs) lockd or something like that...ok, now I could guess, that's due
to some of POSIX lock weaknesses.. CMIIW
-- 
regards,

Mulyadi Santosa
Freelance Linux trainer and consultant

blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com
training: mulyaditraining.blogspot.com