On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:33:26AM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > IOW: the process that is waiting in locks_mandatory_area() will be > > released as soon as the advisory lock is dropped. If that theory is > > broken in practice, then that is the bug that we need to fix. We neither > > want to add a load of locking crap to notify_change(), nor should we > > need to. > > We have this for inotify already. Adding wakeup for mandatory lock > is not that bad. > > Anyway - I noticed, that the system state can become not consistent > and proposed the way to fix it. If this inconsistency is not a big > deal, and nobody cares, than I'm fine with forgetting this patch, > since I have no other arguments to protect it, but "this is just not > very nice without this patch".
Maybe this should be documented, e.g. in fcntl(2). I'm not sure exactly what we'd say--we probably don't want to commit to the current behavior. Maybe something like "behavior is undefined when setting or clearing mandatory locking on a file while it is locked". --b. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
