On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07:14PM +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > > Would it make sense to return the lock type held instead, so you could > > do one flock(fd, LOCK_TEST) instead of flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_SH) and > > flock(fd, LOCK_TEST|LOCK_EX) ? > > Well, in our case we parse /proc/locks anyway to see what > files at least to test for being locked. But what you propose > looks even better. I'll look what can be done here. Actually I think I prefer your version. It seems cleaner to define LOCK_TEST as returning the same result as you'd get if you actually tried the lock, just without applying the lock. It avoids having a different return-value convention for this one command. It might avoid some ambiguity in cases where the flock might be denied for reasons other than a conflicting flock (e.g. on NFS where flocks and fcntl locks conflict). It's closer to what GETLK does in the fcntl case. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
