On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote: > J. Hannken-Illjes wrote: > > The test fcntl_getlock_pids() from fs/vfs/t_vnops.c assumes > > fcntl(fd, F_GETLK, &lock) returns the blocking lock with the > > lowest start offset. > > > > Our documentation and POSIX.1 document it returning the > > "first lock that blocks" but doesn't call for any specific order. > > I think it's an ambiguity in POSIX. I wrote the test in assumption > that "first" means a lock with the lowest start offset but my > intention was to interate over *all* locks in any order. I think > it's still possible with the current behaviour but with a less > straightforward implementation: rather then moving linearly through > a file, you will have to build a tree.
If you care sufficiently much, you may want to mail austin-group-l@ opengroup.org, as they're the current posix manglers.
