On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 15:42 +0500, stsp wrote: > 21.06.2023 15:35, Jeff Layton пишет: > > I don't think we can change this at this point. > > > > The bottom line (again) is that OFD locks are owned by the file > > descriptor (much like with flock()), and since file descriptors can be > > shared across multiple process it's impossible to say that some single > > process owns it. > What's the problem with 2 owners? > Can't you get one of them, rather than > meaningless -1? > Compare this situation with read locks. > They can overlap, so when you get an > info about a read lock (except for the > new F_UNLCK case), you get the info > about *some* of the locks in that range. > In the case of multiple owners, you > likewise get the info about about some > owner. If you iteratively send them a > "please release this lock" message > (eg in a form of SIGKILL), then you > traverse all, and end up with the > lock-free area. > Is there really any problem here? Yes. Ambiguous answers are worse than none at all. What problem are you trying to solve by having F_OFD_GETLK report a pid? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
