On Nov 19 19:13, Takashi Yano wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 10:49:39 +0100 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > [PATCH v2] Cygwin: flock: Fix overlap handling in lf_setlock() and > > > lf_clearlock() > > > as well? > > > > Give me a bit of time. While the patch might fix the problem, what > > bugs me is the deviation from upstream code. We will at least need > > a few comments to explain why we don't follow the upstream behaviour. > > I've got it. Does this code come from 'upstream'? From what code?
This was once ripped from FreeBSD code in 2008. The upstream code has changed considerably, though, so I'm not so sure if my reluctance makes any sense. > Essentially, the ovcase 1 can be a part of ovcase 3. I guess the > 'upstream' does not add lock entry having same lock range unlike > current cygwin (lf_ver related). So, ovcase 1 can break after > handling 1 overlap. However, we need find overlap repeatedly > because we have lf_ver. Yeah, I get that. What bugs me is that the structure of the upstream snippets changed, not the necessity for change. For that reason alone, I would prefer that the `case 1:' expression stays where it is in lf_clearlock. But that's unreasonable. It's a puzzle of life that one thinks in 2008, that this upstream code will always stay what it is. A mere 16 years later... Ok, never mind that. Please push. Maybe add a single-line comment why we deviate from the original 2008 FreeBSD code at these points. Thanks, Corinna
