Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever. Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to acquire a clustered filesystem lock". Not even close. It would be much better to do something which explicitly and directly expresses what you're trying to do rather than this strange "lets do this because the names sound the same" thing. What happens when we want to add some new primitive which has no posix-file analog? Waaaay too cute. Oh well, whatever. -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
