On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that - nobody over here cares what it's called. --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@xxxxxxxxxx -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
