From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 23:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20050904061045.GI21228@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20050901104620.GA22482@redhat.com> <20050903183241.1acca6c9.akpm@osdl.org> <20050904030640.GL8684@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <200509040022.37102.phillips@istop.com> <20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Daniel Phillips , Joel.Becker@oracle.com, linux-cluster@redhat.com, wim.coekaerts@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from rgminet04.oracle.com ([148.87.122.33]:37476 "EHLO rgminet04.oracle.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751233AbVIDGLI (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Sep 2005 02:11:08 -0400 To: Andrew Morton Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050903214653.1b8a8cb7.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to > acquire a clustered filesystem lock". Not even close. What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - nobody over here cares what it's called. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@oracle.com