From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] locks: Allow disabling mandatory locking at compile
 time
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:46:35 -0800
Message-ID: <20151111224635.GD13853@jra3>
References: <876118v333.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <20151111202607.GD29410@fieldses.org>
 <20151111174401.5778153c@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Reply-To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from hr2.samba.org ([144.76.82.148]:54646 "EHLO hr2.samba.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752824AbbKKWqn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:46:43 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151111174401.5778153c@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:44:01PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Windows BRLs are mandatory but they have totally different semantics.
> 
> I think there is little reason to keep POSIX mandatory locks for
> windows emulation purposes. I'm pretty sure Samba doesn't rely on them,
> for instance, given that you have to use a funky mode bit combo to
> enable them.

Nope. We emulate Windows mandatory locks on top of POSIX advisory
locks. We don't use POSIX mandatory locks at all.