From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] locks: add new "private" lock type that is owned by the filp Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 05:37:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20131217133721.GA16724@infradead.org> References: <1386703055-22308-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <1386703055-22308-7-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20131217083125.4ce0382b@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs-ganesha-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, samba-technical@lists.samba.org To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131217083125.4ce0382b@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:31:25AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > So, I think the above semantics are pretty clear, but now that I've had > a go at sitting down to document this stuff for the POSIX spec and > manpages, it's clear how convoluted the text in there is becoming. > > That makes me wonder...would we be better off with a new set of cmd > values here instead of new l_type values? IOW, we could add new: > > F_GETLKP > F_SETLKP > F_SETLKPW That seems a tad cleaner to me indeed. > ...and then just reuse the same F_RDLCK/F_WRLCK/F_UNLCK values? With > that too, we could create a new equivalent to struct flock that has > fixed length types instead of dealing with the off_t mess. For the Posix interface you'd need an off_t as that's what the whole API uses for file offsets. We could make sure to always use a off64_t for the kernel interface though. What is the API you propose to posix? An new posix_lockf?