From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51104)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <felix.janda@posteo.de>) id 1bqAsP-00069C-RO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:22:14 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <felix.janda@posteo.de>) id 1bqAsL-0004CG-LC
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:22:12 -0400
Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:45117)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <felix.janda@posteo.de>) id 1bqAsL-0004Bk-EP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:22:09 -0400
Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130])
	by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77B5C20935
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat,  1 Oct 2016 05:22:02 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:20:06 -0400
From: Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de>
Message-ID: <20161001032006.GA23216@nyan>
References: <20160930233959.GB5887@nyan>
	<CAFEAcA8HMcL6DB9sdc2VO0GPHXG=w6mztBg8dp3XkwGA_1__hQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8HMcL6DB9sdc2VO0GPHXG=w6mztBg8dp3XkwGA_1__hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user: include <linux/fcntl.h> for
 F_EXLCK and F_SHLCK
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 30 September 2016 at 16:39, Felix Janda <felix.janda@posteo.de> wrote:
> > The F_EXLCK and F_SHLCK fcntl lock constants are obsolete synonyms for
> > F_WRLCK and F_RDLCK.
> 
> This seems unlikely, since on for instance Alpha F_EXLCK is
> 16, F_SHLCK is 32, F_RDLCK is 1 and F_WRLCK is 2, so they're
> all distinct:
> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/arch/alpha/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h#L52

Except for headers, the only use of F_EXLCK in the kernel is in
fs/cifs/file.c, where it has the same effect as F_WRLCK (except
for a debug message). Similarly for F_SHLCK and F_RDLCK.

Thanks,
Felix