On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 06:40:52PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > NAK. This is an ABI change. It was also comprehensively rejected before > because > > - EDEADLK behaviour is ABI Not in any meaningful way. > - EDEADLK behaviour is required by SuSv3 What SuSv3 actually says is: If the system detects that sleeping until a locked region is unlocked would cause a deadlock, fcntl() shall fail with an [EDEADLK] error. It doesn't require the system to detect it, only mandate what to return if it does detect it. > - We have no idea what applications may rely on this behaviour. I've never heard of one that does. > so we need to fix the bugs - the lock usage and the looping. At that > point it merely becomes a performance concern to those who use it, which > is the proper behaviour. If you want a faster non-checking one use > flock(), or add another flag that is a Linux "don't check for deadlock" You can't fix the false EDEADLK detection without solving the halting problem. Best of luck with that. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
