From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: Ability to test for flock presence on fd Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:18:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20140909161820.GH1776@fieldses.org> References: <5405FBAE.5020303@parallels.com> <20140902184456.GC31793@fieldses.org> <54061562.4080306@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54061562.4080306-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: Jeff Layton , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07:14PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could > > do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and > > flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ? > > Well, in our case we parse /proc/locks anyway to see what > files at least to test for being locked. But what you propose > looks even better. I'll look what can be done here. Actually I think I prefer your version. It seems cleaner to define LOCK_TEST as returning the same result as you'd get if you actually tried the lock, just without applying the lock. It avoids having a different return-value convention for this one command. It might avoid some ambiguity in cases where the flock might be denied for reasons other than a conflicting flock (e.g. on NFS where flocks and fcntl locks conflict). It's closer to what GETLK does in the fcntl case. --b.