Daniel Phillips <phillips@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even > sickeningly so. It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that is > my understanding. It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools. > Of course it would help to know exactly how those tools use it. Well I'm not saying "don't do this". I'm saying "eww" and "why?". If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus far unsuccessfully): Are you saying that the posix-file lookalike interface provides access to part of the functionality, but there are other APIs which are used to access the rest of the functionality? If so, what is that interface, and why cannot that interface offer access to 100% of the functionality, thus making the posix-file tricks unnecessary? -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
