On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:37:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I am curious why a lock manager uses open to implement its locking
> semantics rather than using the locking API (POSIX locks etc) however.
Because it is simple (how do you fcntl(2) from a shell fd?), has no
ranges (what do you do with ranges passed in to fcntl(2) and you don't
support them?), and has a well-known fork(2)/exec(2) pattern. fcntl(2)
has a known but less intuitive fork(2) pattern.
The real reason, though, is that we never considered fcntl(2).
We could never think of a case when a process wanted a lock fd open but
not locked. At least, that's my recollection. Mark might have more to
comment.
Joel
--
"In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michaelangelo."
Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
Oracle
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: (650) 506-8127
-
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/
