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: joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx Phone: (650) 506-8127 -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
